D.O.F:10/03/2023
D.O.O:29/09/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.79/2023
Dated this, the 29th day of September 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Ayishath Sibiriya C.H.
Thaskeen Manzil,
Indira Nagar, Chengala P.O.
Cherkala, Kasaragod
Kerala. : Complainant
And
- Proprietor
Nayak electronics
Apsara complex
Opp. K.S.R.T.C stand
Kasaragod.
- Manager
Hair Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Builiding – 1. Okhla Industries Estate Phase III
New Delhi – 110020. : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complainant purchased a HAIER HRF 3954 Refrigerator from opposite party on 23/09/2021 for Rs. 45,900/-. After two months of purchase, the refrigerator stopped functioning and it is informed to opposite party No.1. The service men came and cured the defect, but after two months the same complaint repeated. When contacted to opposite party No.1 to register the complaint of the refrigerator, the opposite party No.1 behaved in a rude manner. The opposite party No.1 send a mechanic who temporarily cured the defect. Thereafter also the same complaint repeated in every three months. Now the warranty period is over and the refrigerator stopped functioning one week before the warranty period. A mechanic came and informed that some part of the refrigerator is missing and he will bring it. Thereafter he did not come and opposite party No. 1 is not responding to the calls. Due to the non-functioning of the refrigerator, the food items kept inside the refrigerator was spoiled and due to leakage of water, the kitchen is also become dirty. The complainant was unable to send her children to the college in time due to the non-functioning of the fridge. Fed up with the negligent attitude of opposite party, the complainant filed this complaint. The complainant seeking a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- from opposite party for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
Notice of opposite party No. 1 and 2 served, but they remained absent, name of opposite parties called absent set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the retail invoice dated 23/09/2021. Ext.A2 to A5 are the copy of photographs of the refrigerator.
The main issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of opposite parties in repairing the refrigerator?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience issue No. 1 to 3 can be discussed together. The complainant purchased a refrigerator of good quality from the shop of opposite party No.1. After 2 months of purchase, the refrigerator stopped functioning. When informed to opposite party No.1 they send a mechanic. The mechanic cured the defects, but after every two months, the same complaint repeated. When informing the complaint to opposite party No.1, they behaved in a rude manner. In the last occasion on 14/02/2023, after informing the complaint to opposite party No.1, a mechanic came and informed that some parts of the refrigerator are missing and he will bring it. But so far, it is not brought and the defects are not cured. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 many times but they did not made any steps to cure the defects permanently. It is informed by the mechanic that quality of the refrigerator is very bad. Ext. A1 proves the purchase of the refrigerator by the complainant on 23/09/2021. Ext. A2 to A5 are the copy of the photographs of the defective refrigerator. The opposite party No.1 assured the quality of the refrigerator at the time of purchase. But while using it, the complainant is convinced that the product is of low quality. Due to the continuous complaint of the refrigerator, she suffered untold miseries. But the complainant had not taken any steps to appoint an expert to diagnose the actual defect of the refrigerator. The same complaint repeated after every two months proves that the defects of the refrigerator was not properly cured. In the absence of contra evidence, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Due to the non-functioning of the refrigerator, the complainant suffered loss and mental agony. The complainant is entitled for relief. Her claim is for a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. But she has not produced any documentary evidence for such a huge loss. Considering the circumstances of this case, the commission holds that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing opposite parties to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of complaint till its realization to the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Retail invoice dated 23/09/2021
A2 to A5 – Copy of photographs of the refrigerator
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
