A K. Bhattacharyya, President
Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator from the OP no. 1 on 05-07-2009 at a cost of Rs. 8,200/-. In terms of the warranty card, the refrigerator was under warranty for five years including one year comprehensive warranty. It is stated by the complainant the refrigerator started malfunctioning within 8/9 months of its use and therefore, he lodged complaint with the OPs and despite repeated repairing of the same, it used to become defunct within few days of its repairing on several occasions causing enormous mental strain, physical harassment as well as monetary loss to him. Hence, the instant case seeking relief as per prayer of the complaint.
In support of his case, the complainant filed photocopies of Cash Memo, Warranty Card, Service Request forms, GDE no. 275 dt. 06-11-2011 etc.
It appears from the record that the Notice sent to OP no. 1 was returned with postal endorsement ‘Refused’. Hence, the case is heard ex-parte against the OP no. 1.
The OP no. 2 contested the case truly by filing written version as well as WNA. They also took a positive part in the entire proceeding to defend their case. By their written version they denied all allegations which the complainant levelled against them. The OP no. 2 did not dispute the bonafideness of the complainant’s claim as regards purchase of the refrigerator in question. However, they raised strong objection as to the complainant’s allegation about deficiency in service on their part with the contention that they had always been prompt to render proper assistance to the complainant whenever they received complainant from the complainant. The OP no. 2 further stated that they are ever ready to render proper service to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the warranty card. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the instant case limine.
Points for determination
- Whether the instant case is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief and/or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Aforesaid points are taken up collectively for the sake of brevity of discussion.
We have carefully gone through the entire materials on record submitted by the contesting parties including the WNA on record and considered the submission of ld. Advocates appeared on behalf of both sides.
Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer of the OPs. There is no dispute as regards maintaininability of this case from jurisdiction as well as limitation aspect. Therefore, we hold that the instant case is maintainable in its present form.
It appears from the photocopies of Service request forms that the OP no. 2 repaired the refrigerator on 15-09-2011 and charged Rs. 225/- to the complainant for the purpose of repairing the defunct refrigerator. It further appears from the record that the OP no. 2 again repaired the refrigerator on 18-10-2011 and charged Rs. 2,500/- for the same. It is alleged by the complainant that the refrigerator again went out of order on 20-10-2011 and on his complaint, the OP no. 2 though sent their service engineer on 05-11-2011, the said engineer went back without repairing the same and since then, they have not turned up to repair the defective refrigerator. On the other hand, the OP no. 2 contended that the complainant did not allow their men to attend to the refrigerator; hence they could not repair the same.
It transpires from the aforesaid contradictory statements of the contesting parties that the refrigerator went out of order thrice within a span of one month. While there is no such allegation on the part of the OP no. 2 as regards mishandling of the refrigerator by the complainant, it can safely be concluded that the OP no. 2 remained unsuccessful to make the refrigerator functional on a permanent despite charging Rs. 2,725/- to the complainant.
It is alleged by the complainant that the refrigerator started malfunctioning within 8/9 months of its use and completely went out of order within 2 years of its use and repeated servicing of the same by the service engineers of the OP no. 2 proved futile and despite payment of Rs. 2,725/- there was no improvement in the situation. Indeed, when a product goes out of order in such quick succession despite repeated repairing, it not only lay bare the failure of the servicing people to fix and inability/make good a defect/problem being encountered by a consumer, such failure also points out to some serious defect of the product in question, if not a manufacturing defect per se in strict sense. At the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that when a product remains inoperative despite repeated servicing, the very purpose of purchasing the same gets defeated causing enormous inconvenience and hardship to a helpless consumer. It clearly points out deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
As a manufacturer/service provider/seller it is/was the bounden duty of the OPs to ensure proper functioning of the product, which they have miserably failed. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it fit and proper to direct the OPs to extend the validity period of the refrigerator warranty for a further period of 5 years including 1 year comprehensive warranty from the date of making the refrigerator defect free at their own cost and pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant for his harassment and mental pain and agony together with litigation cost Rs. 1,000/-
All these points thus answer in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant complaint case be and the same is allowed against OP no.1 exparte and against OP no.2 on contest. The OPP. Parties are severally and jointly directed to remove the entire defect/defects in the refrigerator in question in order to make it in good running conditions after replacement of part/parts, if any, at their own cost within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. The OP no.2 is further directed toextend the validity period of the said refrigerator warranty for a further period of 5 years including 1 year comprehensive warranty from the date of making the refrigerator defect free, at its(OP no.2) own cost.The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally topay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant for his harassment and mental pain and agony together with litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- .If the Opposite Parties fail to comply with the order, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law, in which case, the OPs will be liable to pay a fine of Rs.100/- per day from this day till full compliance of the aforesaid order/directions.
S.S. Ali A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member President
