SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  for an order directing  the OPs  to  pay Rs.1,00,000/-  as the value  of  fridge and  compensation for mental agony  caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on  the  part of OP’s.

The brief  of the complaint :

    The  complainant  had purchased  Whirlpool (model No.REFIFPRO BM INV 340) fridge on 6/3/2021 for an amount of Rs.38.800/-  from 1^st OP.  At the time of purchasing  the  refrigerator OP assured (9+1) 10 year warranty with free of cost  repair.  The complainant had purchased the refrigerator only on believing the advertisement  and assurance of OPs.  The OPs assured that the product is free from all defects.  But after use of  3 months  the refrigerator became defective and 1^st OP assured that cure the defects  at proper time itself.  Immediately the complainant informed the matter to 1^st OP.  Then the 1^st OP’s technician came to  complainant’s house and to correct the knob of the freezer.  But the freezer problem  not cured  completely.  The technician of 1^st OP stated that  the defects cured.  But later the same problem arise and vegetables and food items kept in the freezer is defective.  So the act of  OPs, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

       After filing this complaint  notice issued  to both OPs.  OPs 1&2 received the notice and  1^st OP not  appeared  before the commission  and not filed  version and 1^st OP set exparte.  2^nd OP filed their written version  and he contended  that the complaint is barred by limitation.  The allegation of the complainant is that the complainant purchased the subject product on 6/3/2021 and the same has been defective within 3 months from the date of purchase.  Moreover the complainant has to prove the manufacturing defect also.  In case  any manufacturing defects detected in the said product, they agreed to resolve such a manufacturing defect by replacing the defective part.  The complainant has not contacted the 2^nd OP during the  warranty period for any  defect of the refrigerator.  The complainant is not entitled to get the relief  as prayed for.  So there is  no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of 2^nd OP.  Hence the   complaint may be dismissed. 

     On16/10/2023 the complainant  filed a petition before the commission to appoint an expert commissioner.  The OPs have no objection to expert application.  Then the petition  allowed and  one Mr.Manoj T.P is appointed as the expert commissioner and the expert commissioner inspected the  refrigerator and filed the report before the commission and  marked as Ext.C1.  The 2^nd OP has no objection to the commission report  also.

         On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1& A2  and Ext.C1 were marked. On OP’s side  no oral or documentary evidence produced.

Issue No.1: 

         The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  He was cross examined as PW1 by  2^nd OP. He relied upon  Exts.A1 & A2 documents and Ext.C1 report.  According to the complainant on 6/3/2021 the complainant had purchased Whirlpool (model No.REFIFPRO BM INV 340) fridge for an amount of Rs.38.800/- from 1^st OP, it clearly shows in Ext.A1 document. Ext.A2 is the user manual.  Moreover Ext.C1 report the expert noted that  the freezer side is working and the top of refrigerator cabin is not working.  The expert stated that within 4 months of purchase a complaint was made to the  company that only the freezer side of the fridge was working  and the refrigerator cabin(top) was not cooling.  At the time of inspection company technician solved this  issue.  Again they approached the company regarding the same issue.  The expert inspected the refrigerator on 24//11/2023 the same problem still exists.  So the problem occurred in the  refrigerator is having some manufacturing defects.  Moreover in OP’s side  except the version  of 2^nd OP , no documentary or no oral evidence to prove their defence.  As regarding the point of limitation tendered by the  OPs that the complainant clearly specified the petition regarding the delay condonation .  The commission admits that delay petition and delay condoned. So the act of  OPs, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the  issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

    As discussed above the OPs are not ready to cure the defects of the refrigerator.  The complainant produced Ext.A1 document which  clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator for an amount of Rs.38,800/-.  In Ext.A2 is the user manual  which  clearly  shows that the product is defective within the warranty period .  In Ext.C1 report the expert commissioner noted that the freezer side is working  and the (top) refrigerator cabin is not working.  So it is clear that the refrigerator  have some  manufacturing defect also.  According to the complainant failure to cure the defect of  the refrigerator , so the OPs are directly bound  to  redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.   Therefore we hold that  the  OPs 1 and 2 are  jointly and severally  liable to cure the  defects of the refrigerator with free of cost  or to pay the value of refrigerator worth Rs.38,800/-  to the complainant along with  Rs.8000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost.  Thus issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the   opposite parties 1 and 2 are  jointly and severally  liable to cure the  defects of the refrigerator with free of cost  or to pay the value of refrigerator worth Rs.38,800/-  to the complainant along with  Rs.8000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.38,800/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  If the opposite parties  are  fail to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After compliance of the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the refrigerator  from the complainant.

Exts:

A1- Tax invoice dtd.6/3/21

A2-User manual

C1- Expert report  dtd.24/11/23

PW1-Sahid Ali-  complainant

Sd/                                                               Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                         MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                       /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR