Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/606/2019

Sri. S.R Srinivasamurthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Godrej & Boycee Mfg. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. S.R. Srinath

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

Complaint Filed on:04.04.2019

Disposed On:25.09.2019

                                                                              

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

 

    DATED THIS THE 25^th SEPTEMBER OF 2019

 

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM - PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

                          

                      

Complaint No.606/2019

 

 

 

COMPLAINANT	Sri.S.R Srinivasamurthy, S/o Late Rajashekhar Shastry S, Aged about 65 years, R/at No.96, 1st Floor, 4th Main, Canara Bank Colony, Bangalore – 560 072.   Advocate – Sri.S.R Srinath           V/s
OPPOSITE PARTies	1) M/s. Godrej & Boycee Mfg. Co. Ltd., Appliance Division, Represented by its General Manager, Plant-II, Pirojsha Nagar, Vikhrolli (W), Mumbai – 400079.   2) M/s. Girias Investment Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, No.34/1A, 1st Main Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009.

                                       

 

O R D E R

 

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to exchange or furnish new fridge to the complainant in place of defective one or in the alternative to repay Rs.20,000/- the cost of the refrigerator and damages of Rs.5,000/- in the interest of justice and equity.

 

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

 

 

The complainant purchased Refrigerator from OP-2 on 28.04.2018 by paying Rs.20,000/-.  The same was manufactured by OP-1.  The complainant submits that, the OP-2 has also issued the brochure along with warranty card holding both the OPs are responsible in the event of any disorder or defect in the goods purchased by the complainant.  The Refrigerator purchased by the complainant was also having one year warranty as per the brochure and warranty card. 

 

Complainant further submits that after purchase of the Fridge went out of order on 28.10.2018.  Same was informed through phone and lodged complaint to the OP-1 through OP-2.  Accordingly the service engineer visited the complainant residence and replaced the compressor along with non-locking of the door and other parts which went out of order within 7 months from the date of purchase of the above said fridge.  Thereafter again on 14.03.2019 the said fridge went out of order with a problem of entire fridge had lost cooling effect and the articles such as vegetables, milk, butter, ghee and other liquid items rottened due to the loss of cooling effect.  Immediately the complainant again lodged the 2^nd complaint orally to the OP-2.  Later service engineer of OP-1 replaced the worn out parts of the fridge by replacing the fan and the belt installed to the above fridge.  Thereafter there is only a minimum cooling effect but the articles stored in the freezer box not freezed.  The same was intimated to the service engineer.  For that the service engineer gave evasive reply.

 

The complainant further submits that, immediately after the 2^nd service the complainant approached the OP-2 and sought for exchange of Refrigerator.  OP-2 refused and stating that the OP-2 is not authorized to exchange the Refrigerator, it is the responsibility of OP-1 and moreover when the warranty is there, the engineer of OP-1 shall effect the service by replacing the worn out parts.  The complainant is not satisfied with the reply of OP-2 and also service given by engineer of OP-1.  Thereafter complainant got issued a legal notice to OP-1 & 2 seeking for exchange of fridge purchased on 28.04.2018.  OPs neither replied the notice nor exchanged the Refrigerator.  Complainant felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence complainant approached the Forum for seeking relief.

 

3. After service of the notice from the Office, the OPs did not appear before this Forum and hence OPs called out as absent and have been placed exparte.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the Complainant has filed his affidavit reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The Complainant has produced documents.  We have heard the arguments and gone through the oral and documentary evidence of the Complainant scrupulously and posted the case for order.  

 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

 

1. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief sought for?

 

 

2.  What order?

 

 

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1:  In the affirmative

Point No.2:  As per the order below

 

REASONS

 

7. Point No.1: The Complainant firmly stated oath in his affidavit that, the Complainant has purchased Godrej RT EON 240 P 2.4 Magic Wine Refrigerator from OP-2 manufactured by OP-1 by paying a sum of Rs.20,000/-.  The said Refrigerator had a warranty of one year from the date of purchase.  The complainant alleged that, the said Refrigerator went out of order on 28.10.2018.  The same was complained to the OP-1 through OP-2.  The service engineer of OP-1 attended the complaint and replaced the compressor along with non-locking of the door and other parts.  Thereafter again on 14.03.2019 the said refrigerator had lost cooling effect.  Immediately the complainant lodged 2^nd complaint.  The service engineer of OP-1 attended the problem by replacing the worn out parts of the fridge such as fan and belt.  Thereafter there is only a minimum cooling effect but the articles stored in the freezer box did not freezing.  This act of OPs in not providing the proper service or refund of the amount to the complainant inspite of notice amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  To substantiate this contention, the Complainant has produced tax invoice, warranty card & other documents.

 

8. To rebut the contention of the complainant, the OPs have not appeared in the instant case though the notices were duly served and thereby the OPs remained absent in the sense the OPs either admits the averments of the complainant in toto or they have nothing to say contrary to the complainant’s averments.  If the matter is viewed on this line, it proves that, the OPs have agreed the same impliedly.  Non-appearance and non-filing of the version amounts to admission in the light of decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s.Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., vs. Aman Kumar Garg, wherein it is held that,

 

“Non-filing of written version to complaint before the forum, amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint”.

 

9. The complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to non-performance of the promise made by the OPs.  Hence, viewed from any angle as per the records, it clearly evident that, the above said Refrigerator is having problem that too within the warranty period.  Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that OPs are jointly and severally liable to replace the Refrigerator with a new one or refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the Regrigerator along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.  Accordingly, we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative. 

 

10. Point no.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

ORDER

 

1. The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.

 

2) OP-1 & 2 jointly and severally directed to replace the Refrigerator in question with a brand new one or return Rs.20,000/- to the complainant being the value of the said Refrigerator.  Further the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony, hardship & inconvenience along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

 

3) This order is to be complied by the OP-1 & 2 within 45 days from the receipt of this order.

 

          4) Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 25^th day of September 2019)

   

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.S.R Srinivasa Murthy. 

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Purchase Bill dated 28.04.2018 for Rs.20,001/-.
Ex-A2	Delivery note
Ex-A3	Warranty card
Ex-A4	Service cards 2 in nos. after service (repairs)
Ex-A5	Copy of legal notice dated 19.03.2019.
Ex-A6	Postal receipts two in numbers
Ex-A7	Acknowledgment

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

Vln*