BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 30.10.2013

Date of Order : 30.09.2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 741/2013

Between

And

O R D E R

V,K. Beena Kumari, Member

A brief statements of facts of this complaint is as follows :

The complainant Shri S. Sankaranarayanan had purchased a whirlpool 300 litres Refrigerator from M/s. Ammini Traders, Tripunithura on 09.02.2011 vide invoice No. 28599. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 18,500/- for the above said Refrigerator. As on 30^th May, 2011 the Refrigerator developed serious defects and the defects were cured and returned after eight days. But the fridge again became defective and the complainant took up the matter with 2^nd opposite party vide letter dated 20.06.2011 and the fridge was taken back for repairs, later the complainant was informed through telephone that the fridge showed some serious defect therefore it is necessary to replace the fridge and prior to the replacement advice another fridge had already been installed but it was not working hence the said fridge was taken back by the 3^rd opposite party the authorised service centre of M/s. Whirlpool India limited. The third opposite party replaced the defective parts of the complainant;s fridge after collecting charges for the replaced parts of Rs.2030/- but even after the replacement of the defective parts, the fridge developed wire shorting noise. The Technician replaced the spares after levying Rs. 300/- towards service charges, but the same defect re-occurred and on 14.07.2013 the complainant lodged a complaint and repair was carried out on 16.07.2013. Thus the complainant expended more than Rs. 24,075/- for the fridge including its value. On 16.07.2013 the fridge was taken back by 2^nd opposite party and the fridge was delivered from the service centre after repair on 30.07.2013 but on the very next day the same defect re-occurred and the complainant had requested for replacement of the defective fridge with a new one or to refund the price of the fridge. By this time mastermind series of fridge was withdrawn from the market by the opposite party and a new brand 'Neo' was introduced in its place. It is contended by the complainant that in view of the inherent defects of the fridge, he is entitled to replacement of the fridge. There was no response to the lawyer notice requesting replacement of the fridge. Therefore this complaint is filed before this Forum seeking replacement of the defective fridge with a brand new one or to refund its value with interest @ 12 %. The complainant also sought for the refund of the repair charges of Rs. 5575/- collected from the complainant with 12 % interest along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of proceedings.

2. The opposite parties appeared before this Forum in response to the notices issued from this Forum and filed their version contending as follows:

The purchase of the refrigerator by the complainant is admitted by the opposite parties, but all the other averments in the complaint were denied by the opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party received a complaint in the 1^st week of July, 2011. The defective compressor was replaced with a new one valued Rs. 1240/- against which the complainant paid Rs. 1000/-. But the complainant was not happy with the above said replacement. Hence a new refrigerator was provided to the complainant on 07.07.2011. Owing to some physical imperfection, the fridge was replaced with a new one on 09.07.2011. From 09.07.2011 to January, 2013 there was no complaints and in January, 2013, the defective core board was replaced on payment of Rs. 2030/- since by that time the warranty period was over. Again in July, 2013 the opposite party received a complaint regarding 'excessive sound' but the said defect could not be rectified due non-availability of FC door since its production was stopped. Hence the complainant filed this complaint. It is submitted that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. Therefore the opposite party sought for the dismissal of this complaint. 3. From the above pleadings the following issues were settled for the consideration of this Forum :

1. Whether the complainant has proved manufacturing

   defect in the fridge purchased by him so as to entitle him

   for the refund of the price or the replacement of the

   defective fridge with a new one?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to refund the

   repair charges collected from the complainant ?

3. Relief and costs.

4. The evidence in this case consisted of the oral evidence adduced by the PW1, the complainant and DW1, the Manager of the 3^rd opposite party the authorised service centre. The documentary evidence furnished by the complainant were marked as Exts. A1 to A8 on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence furnished by the opposite parties. Heard the Counsel for both parties.

5. Issue No. (i) :

The complainant Shri S. Sankaranarayanan had purchased a 300 ltres refrigerator manufactured by the 1^st opposite party M/s. Whirlpool India Limited from Ammini Traders as evidenced by Ext. A1 Invoice dated 09.02.2011 for Rs. 18,500/-. The new refrigerator started showing serious complaints within two and a half months of its purchase. Therefore the complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party for a new fridge vide Ext. A2 letter dated 08.06.2011 and the 1^st opposite party issued Ext. A3 replacement advice dated 09.07.2011 and the fridge was accordingly replaced. The optimised VI Board was replaced as evidenced by Ext. A5 service request dated 06.07.2013. Thereafter the complainant again requested for replacement of the fridge vide Ext. A7 letter dated 30.07.2013. But there was no response to the above letter. Therefore the complainant issued Ext. A8 lawyer notice dated 23.09.2013 demanding replacement of the refrigerator with a brand new one along with compensation and costs. On an appreciation of all facts and evidences it is found that the complainant was supplied with a refrigerator with inherent manufacturing defects. Further the excessive sound generated from the refrigerator could not be rectified by the opposite party due to the non-availability of the F.C. Door, the production of which was stopped by the opposite party. The DW1 witness of the 3^rd opposite party deposed before this Forum that the opposite party stopped production of “Mastermind” series of refrigerator since 1^st opposite party had stopped production of mastermind series of fridge. Thus we find the opposite party could not rectify a major defect of the refrigeration even with a period of 2 years from the date of purchase of the refrigerator. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled for replacement or refund of the price paid to the opposite party. The 1^st issue is thus decided in favour of the complainant. It is seen that the complainant had used the refrigerator for 1 ½ years, therefore entitled to the refund of the price after deducting the depreciation amount.

6. Issue No. (ii) :

The complainant contended that an amount of Rs. 5275/- was collected from the complainant towards repair charges during the warranty period. The above act of the opposite parties is against the warranty conditions. Therefore we find that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the said amount. The 2^nd issue is thus decided in favour of the complainant.

7. Issue No. (iii) :

Had the opposite parties replaced the defective fridge with a new one, this complaint would not have filed by the complainant. Therefore we find that the complainant is entitled to get the costs of proceedings which we fix at Rs. 1000/- we are not inclined to award any compensation since the refund of price ordered is sufficient to redress the grievance of the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and issue the following Orders for compliance within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

1. The opposite parties shall jointly severally refund the

price after deducting the depreciation i.e. Rs. 12,350/-

(Rs. 18,500 – 6150 depreciation) with interest at @ 12%

per annum from the date of this Order till realisation.

2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund

an amount of Rs.5275/-collected towards repair charges

during warranty period with12% interest per annum from

the date of filing this complaint i.e. from 30.10.2013 till

realisation.

3. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 1000/- to the

complainant towards costs of proceedings.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2015.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member. Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch of the Order :

By Post/By Hand :

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :- Nil