Karnataka

Kolar

CC/36/2016

Sri.Balaji.B.L - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prasad Home Trendz - Opp.Party(s)

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 06/06/2016

Date of Order: 06/12/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 06^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB…..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 36 OF 2016

Balaji B.L,

S/o. B. Lakshman Singh,

#3317/1, A.C. Abdul Ali

Garden, Behind Pump House,

Deshihalli Post, Bangarpet-563 162.

(In-person)                                                                        ….  Complainant.

- V/s -

1) Prasad Home Trendz,

R.V. Arcade, Geetha Road,

Robertsonpet, K.G.F-563 122.

(Placed Exparte)

 

2) Godrej Service,

3^rd Floor, Karnataka Film Chambers

Building, No.28, 1^st Main Road,

Cresent Road, High Grounds,

Near Shivananda Circle, Bangalore-560 001.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. H.V.Krishne Gowda, Advocate)       …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has preferred this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions against the OPs to refund Rs.25,000/- towards price of the refrigerator and Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges paid by the complainant to obtain repair.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, on 03.09.2015 complainant purchased one refrigerator from the OP-1 by making payment of Rs.25,000/-.  But on 24.04.2016 itself the said refrigerator got repaired.  The said refrigerator was transported by the complainant to OP-1 for repair, but thereafter within three days the said problems will persisted.  And hence once again complainant approached the OP-1 to resolve the said problem in the refrigerator, but OP-1 did not respond.  Hence this complaint.

 

(b)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following documents:-

(i) Copy of the Tax Invoice dated: 03.09.2015 issued by the OP-1.

(ii) Copies of the SMS sent by the Godrej SMS with regard to attending the repairs through their service personal.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued, counsel for OP-2 appeared and filed its version resisting the claim of the complainant, but OP-1 remained absent and did not choose to contest the matter, hence OP-1 placed exparte.

 

04.   In the version filed by the counsel for OP-2, OP-2 has contended that, this OP-2 has neither supplied defective refrigerator nor rendered any deficient service.  The complaint filed by the complainant is wholly misconceived and is not maintainable either on facts or in law.  This OP-2 is one of the reputed company having global recognition in manufacturing and marketing of home appliances from several decades, and having its marketing establishment throughout the world.  The complainant has filed this false complaint only to harass the OP to make unlawful gain from the OP-2. 

 

(a)    Further OP-2 has contended that, complainant has not followed the instructions as per the user manual and never informed or complained about the problems with the refrigerator to this OP.  If complainant approached this OP, this issue would have been immediately resolved by appointing a technical representative.  This OP has delivered a product free from manufacturing defect and the said problem has arisen on account of improper handling.  The said machine was working properly after the installation and there was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  Hence the question of replacement did not arise and also complainant has not placed any material to show that, the refrigerator was not working due to manufacturing defect.

 

(b)    Further contention of the OP-2 is that, the averments made by the complainant are only against OP-1 and this OP-2 is vaguely made as a part to the proceedings.  As the complainant himself has refused the services of this OP-2 the cause of action does not exist at all.  So contending, OP-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

05.   On 02.08.2016 complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and on 27.09.2016 on behalf of OP-2 Sri. Sachithananda Murthy.K, an authorized representative of the OP-2, has filed his affidavit evidence.

 

06.   Both complainant and OP-2 have filed their respective written arguments.  Heard arguments.

 

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(A) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(B)    What order?

08.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A):-  In the Affirmative

POINT (B):-  As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A):-

09.   On perusing of the pleadings along with documents and affidavit evidence produced by both complainant and OP-2, it is an admitted fact that, on 03.09.2015 the complainant purchased one “Godrej Double Door Fridge Model RT Eon 261 P 4.3/silver Meadown” from the OP-1 by making payment of Rs.25,000/-.  Now the main allegation of the complainant is that, within the warranty period itself i.e., on 24.04.2016 itself the said refrigerator got repaired by the OP-1, but again the said problem persisted and hence he approached OP-1 once again, but OP-1 did not respond for the same.

 

(b)    In spite of issuance of notice from this forum, OP-1 has failed to appear before this Forum and to contest the matter.  Hence the allegations made on behalf of OP-1 are unchallenged one.  However counsel for OP-2 appeared and filed its version contending that, the complainant never approached this OP-2 nor he gave any complaint to this OP-2 pertaining to the said problem which arosed in the said refrigerator and hence this OP-2 is not at all a necessary party to this proceeding.  And further OP-2 has contended that, the defects arosed in the refrigerator is intimated by the complainant only to OP-1 itself and hence OP-1 is only liable to answer for the allegations made by the complainant. 

 

(c)    On perusing the copy of the warranty card produced by the complainant, which reads thus:-

“The Godrej Frost Free Refrigerator comes with a TEN year warranty on COMPRESSOR and ONE year warranty on all other parts (except bulb, glass and add-on plastic parts) from the date of purchase, against defective material or workmanship.  In case of any such defect found during the first year from date of purchase, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Appliance Division will undertake repairs to the warranted part free of charge, subject to the terms and condition below.  In the warranty period beyond the first year from date of purchase, only the compressor will be provided free of cost.  However, the appliance will be repaired on payment of necessary charges.”

 

Therefore it is clear that, the said refrigerator purchased by the complainant from the OP-1 on 03.09.2015 is within the warranty period.  It is the duty of the Ops to set right the same free of cost. 

 

(d)    Though OP-2 appeared and resisted the claim but OP-1 being a necessary party who is a responsible person to answer did not choose to appear before this forum. 

 

(e)    The complainant has purchased refrigerator by making payment of Rs.25,000/- which is not at all a small amount and within one year from the date of its purchase he has suffered lot of mental agony because of the problem persisted in the said refrigerator.  The repair could not be set right by the service personal.  To substantiate this, the complainant has produced copies of the SMS conversations sent by the Ops service provider.  Having supplied the refrigerator to the complainant it is the bounden duty of the OP-2 which supplied the refrigerator through the OP-1 dealer, to set-right any problem.  The OP-2 cannot shrug from its responsibility stating that, the complainant has not approached the OP-2.  Further SMS communications make it clear that the OP-2 has sent its technicians to repair the refrigerator though the refrigerator was repaired on two occasions the same has not been set-right.  Therefore, the OP-2 being a reputed company is liable to make good the damages or to replace the same along with compensation.  Accordingly we answered Point (A) in the affirmative.

 

POINT (B):

10.   We proceed to pass the following:-

06.12.2016:-

COMPLAINANT BY SRI.

OPPOSITE PARTY BY SRI.

ORDER

01.   The present complaint stands Allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

02.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally are liable to make replacement of the said defective refrigerator with a new defect free refrigerator of the same model within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this order.  Failing which, OP Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 06^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                      MEMBER                            PRESIDENT