BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Friday the 10^th day of April, 2015

C.C.No.121/2014

Between:

G.Aswath Reddy,

S/o G.Subba Reddy,

Advocate, Aged about 57 Years,

H.No.7-6-82, Nandyal Road,

Allagadda-518 543,

Kurnool District.                                                            …Complainant

-Vs-

1.       M/s Balaji Electronics,

          Represented by its Proprietor K.Ravi

          D.No.4-519-A, M.H.School Road,

          Nandyal-518 501.

2.       Whirlpool India Limited,

          By its Authorized Signature,

          Plot No.A-4, MIDC,

          Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirur,

          Pune District,

Maharashtra-419 204.                                           …OPPOSITE PARTIES

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate for complainant and opposite party No.1 called absent and set exparte and Sri.K.V.Uday Bhaskar, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.                                          

   ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)

  C.C. No.121/2014

1.       This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to replace a brand new refrigerator or refund the amount of Rs.17,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony.

3. To pay costs of the complaint.

2.    The case of the complaint in brief runs as follows:- The opposite party No.1 is the dealer of opposite party No.2  at Nandyal.  On 05.01.2011 the complainant purchased Whirlpools Refrigerator with a capacity of 250 Lts., for valuable consideration of Rs.17,000/-.  The opposite parties gave guarantee for a period of five years to the Refrigerator in regard to the standard of cooling system but subsequently even on the date of purchase the cooling system in the refrigerator was not up to the standard and it was gradually reduced and by February, 2014 the cooling system was completely discharged.  The complainant made a complaint to opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 on 13.02.2014.  The service engineer visited the house and attended to the complainant on charge of Rs.1,000/- towards service charges.  Again the same problem was arose on 03.06.2014, on the complaint of complainant the service engineer attended and repair it and collected Rs.1,000/- from the complainant.  But he had not completely rectified the defect, so the complainant endorsed in the job sheet that “Not Satisfied with service”.  Once again on 04.08.2014 the similar problem arose in the said refrigerator.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to rectify the problem but the opposite parties did not take care of the complaint of the complainant.  The complainant checked the refrigerator by a qualified technician, he stated that the opposite parties supplied a manufacturing defect refrigerator to the complainant.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

3.       Inspite of notice served on opposite partyNo.1, opposite party No.1 did not choose either to appear or file any written version on behalf of him.  Opposite party No.1 has remained absent and set exparte.  Sri.K.V.Uday Bhaskar filed vakalat on behalf of opposite party No.2 but the counsel for opposite party No.2 did not file any written version and no representation on behalf of him.  Hence opposite party No.2 also set exparte. 

4.       On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.

5.       Complainant filed Written Argument.

6.       Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:  It is a case of the complainant that the complainant purchased whirlpools Refrigerator with capacity of 250 Lts., for an amount  of Rs.17,000/- from opposite party No.1.  Ex.A1 is the purchase price bill in (Original) issued by opposite party No.1 vide bill No.1549, dated 5.01.2011.  The opposite parties issued a usage Manual the opposite parties gave warranty for a period of five years to the said Refrigerator.  The usage manual is marked as Ex.A4.  The complainant in his sworn affidavit stated that from the date of purchase the cooling system in that Refrigerator was not up to the standard and it was gradually reduced.  The complainant made a complaint on 13.02.2014 to opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1, as cooling system was completely discharged.  The service engineer of opposite party No.2 visited and repaired it and collected Rs.1,000/- as service charges.  The service request form in original dated 13.02.2014 is marked as Ex.A2.  Again on 03.06.2014 the same problem arose in the said Refrigerator.  The complainant wife gave complaint to opposite party No.2.  The service engineer attended and repaired it, and collected a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant.  But the problem was completely not rectified. On 04.08.2014 the similar problem was arose and a complaint made to opposite parties, but the opposite did not attended to the complaint made by him.  The complainant checked the said Refrigerators by a qualified technician, he opined that the opposite parties supplied a manufacturing defect refrigerator to the complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that.  Through the Service Engineer of opposite parties attended under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 they were unable to rectify the problem since the inherent defect is while Manufacturing the Refrigerator, the opposite parties caused deficiency of service by supplying a manufacturing defect refrigerator.

8.       The contentions raised by the complainant are not denied by the opposite parties by filing written version on their behalf.  Thus the case of complainant is deemed to be admitted.  As seen from Ex.lA1 it is very clear that the complainant purchased Whirlpool Refrigerator with capacity of 250 Lts., for an amount of Rs.17,000/- from opposite party No.1 and the opposite parties issued usage manual Ex.A4 in that manual, the opposite parties gave warranty for period of five years to the said refrigerator.  As per Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 it is clear that the cooling system problem was arose in that refrigerator within a warranty period and the Service Engineer of opposite parties repaired it for two times on collection of service charges, but it was not completely rectified because there is manufacturing defect in that refrigerator.  Being a Dealer of opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.1 ought to have return the defective Refrigerator to opposite party No.2 and replaced it with new one, but the opposite parties supplied the defective Refrigerator to the complainant and made him to suffer.  Hence we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and caused mental agony to the complainant.

9.      POINTS iii:  The complainant prayed that to direct for replacement of a brand new refrigerator or refund of price amount Rs.17,000/- with 18% interest and further Rs.15,000/- for mental agony. Basing on the facts and evidence placed on record we hold a view that the complainant is entitled for refund of Refrigerator price amount of Rs.17,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., till the date of payment or to replaced a brand new refrigerator of similar model and the complainant further entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/-towards mental agony.    

10.     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay price amount of Rs.17,000/- with interest 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., on 24.11.2014 till the date of payment or to replace the new Refrigerator of similar model  to the complainant  and further direct to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/-as costs of the case.  Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10^th day of April, 2015.

          Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

   Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: Nil                       For the opposite parties: Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1          Purchase Bill No.1549 for a sum of Rs.17,000/- dated 05.01.2011.

Ex.A2           Service request dated 13.02.2014.

Ex.A3           Job Sheet dated 03.06.2014.

Ex.A4          Usage Manual Book.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil

          Sd/-                                                                                              Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties    :

Copy was made ready on                   :

Copy was dispatched on                    :