IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C. No. 62/2014 (Filed on 02.06.2014)
Between:
Mrs. Manu Biju, Mannil House,
Pezhumpara P.O.,
Vadasserikara Village,
Pathanamthitta District. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Thomas Puthukulam)
And:
- Mr. Thomas Kutty,
Proprietor, Sumi Home Appliances,
Seethathodu P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
- Videocon Corporate Office,
Customer Care Cell, Fort House,
2nd Floor, 221, Dr. D.N. Road,
Mumbai. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: The complainant purchased a Videocon refrigerator from the first opposite party on 26.12.2013. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the refrigerator. The said product has 1 + 4 years warranty. The said refrigerator showed the following complaints from the date of purchase onwards. The complaints are:-
- Not getting cooled up.
- Ice was never formed despite keeping water in the ice cube tray for days together.
- Inner beading of both the doors were loose and partially detached thereby the doors cannot be closed properly and cooling did not developed inside.
- Compressor and other parts were faulty as revealed subsequently.
- Automatic power cut off never functioned.
The complaints of the refrigerator was informed to first opposite party on 01.01.2014. He told that some other service centre of the second opposite party at Ernakulam or Thiruvalla are responsible for the repairs. However, he contacted someone and a person from Thiruvalla came after 3 days and he detached and refitted the doors and went back. But there was no change in the functioning and the complaints persisted. The non-rectification of the complaint was again informed to the first opposite party, then another person came, but the complaints are not rectified him and he had given a telephone number of their service centre at Thiruvalla (No.0469 2605621). He also told that he will officially register the complaint at Thiruvalla. Thereafter the complainant contacted in the said number several times. But there was no specific reply from the said number and at last they gave another mobile number 9847580880 of a person by name Abhilash who is said to be the Service Manager. When he was called, he told the complainant that his men are on the way to the complainant’s house. Finding no one till after noon, the complainant contacted him again. At that time, he got angry and annoying the complainant and shouted that the complainant need not to call him frequently and somebody will come. Accordingly, the next day 2 persons came and dismantled the refrigerator and told that the compressor is not functioning and further told that they will come with a compressor and other required spare parts. But they have not come. Later when the complainant contacted him, he told that the spare parts are not available and thereafter nobody has come till date. From the date of purchase onwards, the complainant had contacted the opposite parties for rectifying the complaints of the refrigerator. But they have not done anything and hence the refrigerator is lying unused from the purchase onwards. The above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties either to replace the refrigerator with a brand new one or to allow the complainant to realize Rs. 17,404/- the price of the refrigerator along with a total amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service, and for the losses and mental agony sustained to the complainant and cost of this proceedings.
3. In this case, opposite parties are exparte.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. Evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts. A1 to A3. After closure of evidence, complaint was heard.
6. The Point: The refrigerator purchased by the complainant became defective immediately after its purchase. In spite of the complainant’s repeated requests, opposite party has not rectified the defects of the refrigerator and redressed the grievances of the complainant. The said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant. Therefore the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents are marked as Exts. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the copy of the original invoice dated 26.12.2013 for Rs. 17,404/- issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant for the sale of the refrigerator to the complainant. Ext. A2 is the check sheet issued by the person who first attended the complaints of the refrigerator. Ext. A3 is the Owners’ Manual issued by the opposite parties in respect of the refrigerator in question.
8. On the basis of the available materials on record, it is seen that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator for Rs. 17.404/- on 26.12.2013 from the first opposite party vide Ext. A1. The allegation of the complainant is that the complaints of the refrigerator occurred during the warranty period is not rectified by the opposite parties in spite of her request to the opposite parties for the same. Since opposite parties are exparte, we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. The non-rectification of the complaints of a product sustained within its warranty period is a clear deficiency in service. Hence we find that this complaint is allowable.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to replace the defective refrigerator with a new refrigerator of the same brand having good quality along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs. 17,404/- along with compensation and cost ordered herein above with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of July, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-1) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the original invoice dated 26.12.2013 for Rs. 17,404/-
issued by the first opposite party in the name of the
complainant.
A2 : Check sheet issued by the person who first attended the
complaints of the refrigerator.
A3 : Owners’ Manual issued by the opposite parties.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Mrs. Manu Biju, Mannil House, Pezhumpara P.O.,
Vadasserikara Village, Pathanamthitta District. (2) Mr. Thomas Kutty, Proprietor, Sumi Home Appliances,
Seethathodu P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(3) Videocon Corporate Office, Customer Care Cell,
Fort House, 2nd Floor, 221, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai.
(4) The Stock File.
