D.o.F:23/12/2008 D.o.O:29/9/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.NO. 126/09 Dated this, the 29th day of September 2010 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER K.K.Jayasree W/o K.Raghavan Nair, Parvathi Nivas, Kanhiravayal, Po.Balla, : Complainant Hosdurg, Kasaragod. (in person) 1.National Radio Electronicals Co. North Kottacheri, Kanhangad. 2. M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd, Door Nos. IX/418/A4 Near Infopark, Edachira, : Opposite parties Kakkanad, Cochi (Ops 1&2 by Adv.Padmanabhan,Hosdurg) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT Bereft of unnecessaries the case of complainant is that she together with her husband purchased an Air Conditioner unit from Ist opposite party on 21/8/08 for ` 16000/- One year warranty is offered to the A/c unit. But it did not work. Though the mechanics sent by Ist opposite party repeatedly attempted to rectify the defects by replacing one component after another it remained defective. Finally, it was taken back to the workshop of Ist opposite party for repair even after that, it did not work a single day. Therefore, the complaint seeking appropriate relief, compensation and costs. 2. Ist opposite party filed version. According to opposite party they are only the dealer of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd is the Manufacturer of A/c unit. Hence they are necessary party to the settlement of this dispute. The A/c unit supplied to complainant was not having any defect and only due to drop in voltage it did not work. Subsequently, when it was fully checked and made it ready, the complainant refused to accept it. Even now Ist opposite party is ready to install it in the house of complainant. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Though 2nd opposite party is impleaded at the instance of Ist opposite party, 2nd opposite party did not file the version instead of availing repeated chances. Finally 2nd opposite party is permitted to file their version on condition of payment of cost of ` 1000/- to consider their version. The said cost is also not paid . Hence we did not consider their version. 4. Complainant examined as PW1, Exts.A1 to A3 marked. For opposite parties DW1 is examined and Ext.B1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the cash receipt. Ext.A2 is the warranty card and Ext.A3 is a certificate issued by one Sri. Sreekumar.K.V Electrical Contractor, Surya Electricals, Mavungal having license No. 14-135-CC-5193. In the certificate he certified that he inspected the premises of complainant and there is no mistake in electrical wiring and the voltage showed 220 volts. 5. PW1 cross examined by the learned counsel for opposite parties at length. He attempted to establish that the complainant is not a consumer since it is purchased in the name of complainant’s husband Raghavan Nair. But PW1 in cross examination deposed that she accompanied her husband at the time of verification and purchased A/c unit. She also deposed that there is sufficient voltage in her locality and the A/c unit is attempted to operate with aid of stabilizer. 6. DW1 deposed that the A/c unit became non functional due to low voltage problem. The contention of opposite parties are not acceptable on many ground . Ext.A3 certificate issued by a licensed Electrical Contractor certifies that the voltage is 220volts at the time of his inspection. Further the complainant attempted to operate the unit with the aid of stabilizer. Had it been so even if there is voltage drop, the unit should have been worked when the stabilizer is attached. Further in the version of Ist opposite party stated that after a full checkup they make the A/c unit ready. This statement also shows that the A/c unit was having some defects and it was not due to the voltage problem it became non functional. 7. When a newly purchased A/c unit shows frequent defects disabling it to function no doubt it would cause mental agony to the consumer. We can imagine the pinch one consumer suffer when the new product yield her no result. The opposite parties are therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and sufferings she suffered. The companies are manufacturing thousands of products every year and it is quite natural that few of the end products may show some defects however fool proof the method of manufacturing 8. Unfortunately our traders and sellers have developed a practice/tendency of not admitting defects in the goods, when pointed out by the consumers, and not replacing the same without a contest. In other countries even if there is aggressive marketing, defective products are easily replaced. That practice is required to be adopted. Instead of disputing the undisputed facts the traders or sellers should resolve the matter by replacing or refunding the price of the defective product or article as the case may be. 9. Further in this case the complainant not only deprived the benefit of the A/c system she purchased but also forced to file the complaint to get her grievance redressed. In response to the complaint the opposite parties took a stand finding fault on the voltage of electricity in the house of complainant that is provided baseless as per Ext.A3. We think this is a fit case to order punitive compensation against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Charansing V. Healing touch Hospital reported in III 2000 CPR1 (SC) has held that the compensation has to be awarded in an established case which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. 10. The complainant during enquiry submitted that she purchased another A/c unit and it is working in her premises without any problem. Therefore, she does not want the repaired A/c unit back and prayed for the refund of the price she paid . Therefore, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund ` 16000/-, the price of the A/c unit together with a punitive compensation of `10,000/- and a cost of ` 3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which opposite parties shall further pay interest @12% for ` 16,000/- from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1 is the cash receipt. A2 is the warranty card A3-dt.10/5/09- certificate issued by one Sri. Sreekumar.K.V Electrical Contractor, Surya Electricals, Mavungal B1-Inspection report PW1- K.K.Jayasree-complainant DW1-Binu Joseph-witness of Ops Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER PRESIDENT eva /Forwarded by Order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | , | | 
