ORDER SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. S. Raveendran Pillai has filed this complaint on 26.11.2009. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows. He had purchased a Refrigerator Model GL C91-PME ASTOBEN on 06.01.2009 for a sum of Rs. 11,693/- (Rupees Eleven thousand six hundred and ninety three only) as per Bill No. 1139 from the first opposite party, based on the assurance of the 1st and 3rd opposite party that it is high standard and perfect in condition. He noticed that the Fridge started to rust. As per the advise of the first opposite party, on 11.09.2009 he filed a complaint before the 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party took the Fridge from him for rectifying the defect by painting the fridge. It was within the period of warranty. After one month, opposite parties informed him that the defects cannot be cured and painting cannot be done due to technical ground. Since the same model of the set was not available as per his request, the opposite parties informed him that they will provide another model of the set. But contrary to their assurances, the opposite parties returned the fridge to him in a dilapidated condition. Since the opposite party sold the fridge to him which was faulty in perfect and having many manufacturing defects, he demanded the opposite parties to return the money, after taking the defective set. There was no positive steps on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They had accepted the notice. Second and third opposite parties entered appearance before this Forum and filed version by the 3rd opposite party. In the version of 3rd opposite party, it is stated that the complainant had purchased the said set from them, and stated that they have manufactured the Refrigerator in a good quality, and they have offering one year warranty and additional 4 year warranty for its compressor. It is further stated that after 8 months of its purchase, the complainant was registered a complaint stating that the door of the fridge is rusting. It is sated that since the refrigerator was a designer one door alone could not be repainted or replaced and the model was also changed by the company. It is further stated that they are prepared to replace the refrigerator with a new one of equivalent model and also prepared to give the unexpired period of warranty of 4 moths. 3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum raised the following issues for considerations. 1. Whether there is any deficiently in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation and costs from the opposite parties? 4. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant have filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence – Ext.A1 to A4 – marked, and he has been examined and cross examined by the 3rd opposite party. Documents Ext. A1 is the purchase Bill No. dtd. 06.01.2009, for a sum of Rs. 11,693/- (Rupees Eleven thousand six hundred and ninety three) towards, the total price of the Refrigerator. The bill was issued to the complainant by the first opposite party. Ext. A2 is the job sheet dtd. 11.09.09 issued to the complainant. It shows that the warranty was for one year. Ext. A3 is the Letter dtd. 14.10.2009 issued by the 2nd opposite party in connection with the complainant of the said fridge and the dispute of giving warranty. Ext. A4 is the Advocate notice issued to the opposite parties by the complainant. Opposite parties have not filed any proof affidavit or any documents in evidences. 5. We have carefully examined the whole matter in detail and examined the documents given by the complainant in evidence. It can be seen that, after the purchase of the fridge, it became rusting and the matter was communicated to the opposite parties. They have taken the set from the possession of the complainant for rectification of the defects. But after one month the opposite parties informed the complainant that it cannot be rectified due to certain technical problems and entrusted the set without rectifying the defects. The defects occurred within the warranty period. But the opposite parties have not taken any sincere attempt to settle the problems. Instead of settle the matter opposite parties have raised flimsy grounds of warranty issue and neglected to cure the defects of the set or exchange a new set. The whole matter shows that there is unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence. The actions of the opposite parties will amounts of cheating of a bonafide purchaser and for this, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for that. Since there is unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties, they are entitled to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. So considering the whole, aspects of this case, we are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant are genuine. Hence complaint is to be allowed and all the issues are found in favour of the complainant. In the result, we hereby direct the 1st opposite party to return the price of the fridge ie. Rs. 11,693/- (Rupees Eleven thousand six hundred and ninety three only) to the complainant, after taking defective set from him, and pay a amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony, in convenience, sufferings and loss due to the unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties by way supplying the defective set to the complainant and purposefully evaded from rectifying the defects of the set in time, and pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as costs of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties to comply the order within 20 days from the date of the receipts of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August 2010. Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- Ext. A1 - Purchase Bill No. dtd. 06.01.2009 (Photocopy) Ext. A2 - Job sheet dtd. 11.09.09 (Photocopy) Ext. A3 - Letter dtd. 14.10.2009 (Photocopy) Ext. A4 - Advocate notice Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F. Typed by:- vo/- Compared by:-
| | [HONORABLE K.Anirudhan] Member[HONORABLE JIMMY KORAH] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt;Shajitha Beevi] Member | | 
