smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. 1. The petitioner's case is as follows: The petitioner purchased a refrigerator manufactured by the first opposite party bearing model No. 8R-A 20 NTK/XYL Sl. No. 002649 TW 600207 on -2- 29..12..2004 for Rs. 9,800/- from the 2nd opposite party who is the authorised dealer of the first opposite party. The first opposite party offered one year warranty for the refrigerator from the date of purchase. The refrigerator became defective in 2005 August and it was informed to the second opposite party. The second opposite party asked the petitioner to approach the third opposite party which is the authorised service centre of the first opposite party. In September 2005 the 3rd opposite party sent a mechanic who inspected the refrigerator and told to the petitioner that the defect is due to the broken magnetic belt of its door, which is a manufacturing defect. Since the above said belt was not available with 3rd opposite party, they directed the petitioner to approach the second opposite party and as per the second opposite parties direction again the petitioner approached the fourth opposite party which is also an authorised service centre of first opposite party. The fourth opposite party also found that the defect was caused due to the broken magnetic belt but they couldn't cure the defect due to the nonavailability of the magnetic belt . All the above mentioned actions were informed to the 2nd opposite party who took up the matter with the first opposite party. The second opposite party informed the petitioner about the nonavailability of magnetic belt with the first opposite party and hence the refrigarator cannot be repaired. Because of the aforesaid reason the fridge remained idle from August 2005 on words and that caused much hardships to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner says that as per the terms of the warranty the first opposite party was obliged to rectify the defect of the refrigerator or replace the fridge or -3- return the purchase money for a period of one year from the date of its purchase. Even after repeated demands, Opposite parties have failed to repair the fridge. They have repaired the fridge only after filing this complaint before the forum. The negligent act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony tension and financial loss to the petitioner and hence they pray to direct the opposite parties to pay damage to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- with cost. 3. The opposite parties two and three appeared before the forum but didn't file any version. First opposite party had not appeared hence set ex-parte. Fourth opposite party received notice but had not appeared before the Forum. 4. The case was settled among the parties out of the Forum and the fridge was repaired by the opposite parties. After that I.A 254/06 was filed by the petitioner for getting damages and cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties. The points for determination are: i) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. ii) Relief and cost if any. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by the petitioner and the three documents produced by the petitioner which are marked as Exts. A1, A2 and A3 . Point No. 1 The petitioner purchased the fridge on 29..12..2004. It became defective in August 2005. The warranty period was from 29..1.2..2004 to 29..12..2005. The opposite parties should have rectified the defect or replaced the fridge or returned the -4- purchase money as per the terms of the warranty. Inspite of repeated demands by the petitioner, the opposite parties had not repaired it. This amount to deficiency in service which caused mental pain, hardship and financial loss to the petitioner. The fridge was repaired by the opposite parties only after the filing of this petition before the forum by the petitioner. Due to the negligence and laches of the opposite parties, the petitioner sustained loss of use of the fridge for about one year and sustained financial loss for conducting this petition before the forum. Considering all the facts stated above and relying on the evidence adduced by the petitioner, we are of the view that the alleged act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, the petition is allowed in part and the petitioner is entitled to get the relief sought for. The act of opposite parties would have definitly caused mental agony, pain and financial loss to the petitioner. Considering the deficiency in service adopted by the oppoosite parties and the facts of the case, we are of the view that allowing Rs. 1000/- as compensation is reasonable. The petitioner is having privity of contract with the dealer. So the petition is allowed in part against dealer and manufacturer jointly and severally. In the result the following order is passed. The first and second opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as cost of proceedings to the petitioner.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
