BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 15/05/2012
Date of Order : 26/09/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 289/2012
Between
Geetha Gopinath, | :: | Complainant |
Choorakottayil House, Edappally Toll, Edappally. P.O., Cochin – 682 024. |
| (Party-in-person) |
And
1. M/s. Jayem Associates, | :: | Opposite Parties |
The Manager, Whirlpool Authorised Service Centre, Pariyarath Building, VI/66 (10), Byepass Junction, Aluva – 683 101. 2. M/s. Whirlpool India Ltd., The Managing Director, A-4 MIDC, Ranjangaon, Taluk Shirur, District Pune, Maharashtra – 419204. |
| (Op.pts by Adv. Biju Hariharan) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainant purchased an air conditioner from Bismi Appliances, Ernakulam at a price of Rs. 19,500/- on 24-02-2011 which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. One year warranty has been provided by the 2nd opposite party. In the first week of February 2012 due to lack of cooling, the complainant reported a complaint with the customer care of the 2nd opposite party. The service centre examined the unit and the compressor was found to be defective and for further processing they took the outdoor unit to their service centre. They assured to replace the same within a week. Subsequently, since there was no response, the complainant contacted the customer care of the 2nd opposite party in Chennai, but the same fell on deaf ears. So, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the machine together with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties is as follows :-
No complaint was reported by the complainant within one year of the purchase of the air conditioner. The service personnel inspected the air conditioner on receipt of a complaint from the complainant. The out door unit of the air conditioner was taken to the service centre for curing the defect. Since, certain components for the service of the air conditioner was not available and the same was intimated to the complainant. But the complainant was not amenable to the suggestion and instead preferred the complaint in this Forum. Now, the defect with respect to the product has been rectified and is ready for delivery. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on her side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the complainant, who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget?
Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. :- It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased an air conditioner from Bismi Appliances, Kaloor, Kochi on 24-02-2011 at a price of Rs. 19,500/- which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party evident from Ext. A1. It is also not in dispute that one year comprehensive warranty and 5 years warranty has been provided by the 2nd opposite party evidenced by Ext. A4 warranty term. According to the complainant, in the 1st week of February 2012 at the instance of the complainant the service centre of the 2nd opposite party took the out door unit, since the compressor suffers from defect and in spite of repeated reminders, the opposite parties failed either to replace the product or to refund its price. On the contrary, the opposite parties maintain that they could not rectify the defect of the air conditioner due to non-availability of the necessary spare parts and as of now, the opposite parties are ready to install the repaired unit at the residence of the complainant.
6. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had caused Ext. A3 letter to the service centre on 18-04-2012 highlighting her grievances. They received the notice on 20-04-2012. In spite of that there was no response on the part of the opposite parties. The above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, especially since, the opposite parties answerably failed to the contra. Since the defect of the air conditioner has been caused within the warranty period, the opposite parties are contractually and legally liable either to replace the full unit of the air conditioner with a new one or to refund its price as per Ext. A1 to meet the ends of justice.
7. Point No. ii. :- The primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely and adequately, we need not go to the extend of awarding compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the air conditioner unit with a new one and set up the same at the cost of the opposite parties or to refund the price with 12% interest p.a., it is made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to choose either of the above directions. The complainant is directed to return the remaining part of the defective air conditioner to the opposite parties simultaneously, the opposite parties shall remove the same as well at their cost.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of September 2012.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the purchase bill dt. 24-02-2011 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the acknowledgment card |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 18-04-2012 |
“ A4 | :: | Copy of the terms of warranty |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
