DOF.25.4.2010

DOO.1.11.2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

                                      Dated this, the 1^st  day of November   2010

C.C.No.111/2010

Shelji Sebastian,

Padimattahil House,

Rajagiri, Kanamvayal.P.O.

Kannur 670 511.                                            Complainant

1. National Radio Electronics Co.,

    Main Road, Payyannur.

2. Whirlpool of India Ltd.,     (Deleted)

    A8.Qutap Institutional Area,

   Vaitalik, 2^nd floor, New Delhi 110 067.              Opposite Parties

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the value of Fridge after taking back with cost of the proceedings.

          The complainant contended that she had  purchased a fridge manufactured by 2nd opposite party from 1^st opposite party’s shop on 23.8.07 as per invoice No.10428 for an amount of Rs.7500/- and the opposite parties offered 5 years warranty for the same. But after one year itself the iron parts of the Fridge was oxidized and the same was informed to 1^st opposite party. So a representative of opposite party had inspected the fridge and he represented the complainant that they will ready to repair the same and the complainant has to pay the repair charge. But at the time of purchase the 1^st opposite party promised that the fridge will be repaired free of cost within the stipulated period of 5 years. So the complainant is not amenable for the same and requested to repair free of cost or to replace the same. But opposite arty was not ready for the same and hence the complainant had caused so much of physical, mental as well as financial hardship.. This was caused due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

          Upon receiving the complaint notices were issued to opposite parties and even though the 1^st opposite party had received the same, he had not entered appearance. Hence he was called absent and set exparte. The notice to 2^nd opposite party was returned with an endorsement ‘left’. Later on the complainant had filed a petition to delete the name of 2^nd opposite party and hence the name of 2^nd opposite party was deleted.

          The main points to be decided  in this case is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

          The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2.

          The complainant’s case is that the fridge became damaged after one year and the representative of 2^nd opposite party promised to repairs the same after giving the repair charge. The complainant had produced Exts.A1 purchase bill and Ext.A2 warranty. The Ext.A1 shows that the complainant had purchased the fridge for an amount of Rs.7500/- on 2.8.07. But the Ext.A2 provides a comprehensive warranty of 5 year i.e. one year comprehensive warranty and 4 year warranty on the compressor. So as per the warranty the opposite party is liable to repair the fridge free of cost, within 5 years if the compressor has any defect. The comprehensive warranty for the fridge is only for one year. But the complainant has no case that the compressor of the fridge is defective. So in this case the complainant’s case is that the iron part of the body of the fridge was oxidized after one year of purchase. So it is true that the opposite party is only liable to repair it after receiving the repair charge and the complainant himself admitted that 1st opposite party had expressed his readiness to repair it after giving the repair charge. So in this case we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. But the opposite party is liable to repair the fridge after receiving the repair charge from the complainant and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the 1^st opposite party to repair the fridge after receiving the repair charge from the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

                                 Sd/-                   Sd/-                    Sd/-

President              Member      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Inovice dt.23.8.07 issued by 1^st OP

A2.Warranty card issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil

              /forwarded by order/

              Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur