SRI NAYANANANDA DASH,MEMBER:-
Unfair trade practice in respect of allegation of manufacturing defect of the Refrigerator are the allegation arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complainant on dtd.04.04.14 purchased one Refrigerator from OP no.1 dealer being manufactured by OP No.2 by paying an amount of Rs.13,500/-. The complainant alleges defects in the spare parts such as Compressor and other parts were not functioning properly inspite of repairs made by OP no.1 thrice. On further complaint on the RefrigeratorOP No.1 on dtd.22.05.14 flatly denied to repair the same though the warranty period was still existing. Subsequently, the complainant issued legal notice to the Ops and the acts of the Ops give mental agony to the complainant. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dt.22.05.14 and dt.23.05.14, when the OP No.1 denied to repair the refrigerator and when legal notice was issued to the OP No.1. Complainant prays this Forum that a direction may be given to Ops to replace the refrigerator and to pay Rs.8,000/- in toto as compensation for mental ago0ny and cost of litigation.
3. Being noticed OP no.1 appeared through their Ld. Counsel OP No.2 though received the notice of the dispute but did not prefer to appear, hence set ex-parte vide Order No.11 dtd.08.01.15. In the written version filed by OP No.1 reveals denying the allegations of the complainant and submitting the the facts it is stated that OP no.1 runs a variety store of many electronics products of various companies. OP No.1 resale those items on a very margin profit. It is further revealed that those customer who does not purchase the items directly from the dealer purchased those items from OP No.1. It is revealed from the written version that in case of defects neither the OP no.1 nor the OP no.2 the manufacturing company is liable to replace the product but obliged to repair the products as per the warranty. It is further revealed that at the time of delivery of the refrigerator the condition was OK and complainant purchased the refrigerator voluntarily understanding the conditions. As the complainant is not the original purchaser from the company cannot claim for replacement, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP No.1 and the ex-parte arguments against OP No.2. It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased one refrigerator on dt.04.04.14 from OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.13,500/- and the OP no.2 is the manufacturing company of the said refrigerator.
The dispute in the case regarding defects in the refrigerator, which according to complainant is an inherent one and inspite of the repairs the compressor of the refrigerator and other parts are not functioning properly which needs a replacement of the refriegerator. Countering the allegations OP No.1 submitted that the said refrigerator is has/had any de3fects same can be repaired but can not be replaced.
5. On perusal of the warranty book issued by the OP No.2-company, it is clearly mentioned that the warranty covers a period of 12 months on refrigerator and extended warranty of 48 months on the compressor and other parts. During course of argument Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that after few days of purchase of said refrigerator it started with defects and being repaired by OP no.1 still the defects exists. It is clear that complainant had purchased the refrigerator on dt.04.04.14 in between legal notice has been issued. It is further submitted that during the hearing that prior to issue of Advocate’s notice the refrigerator does not function and remains idle till date.
Considering the submissions, we are of the opinion that sufficient evidence has not brought before this Forum regarding manufacturing defects on the refrigerator for which a replacement is necessary but, we feel that when a consumer like complainant knock the door of the Forum just after passing of few months of purchase of refrigerator, certainly there is bonafideness on the version of the complainant and the Ops are binding under the law to comply the grievance of the complainant as per the warranty. As we have discussed earlier regarding allegation of manufacturing defects, we can not give any direction to replace the refrigerator at this stage. Further, another opportunity should be given to Ops to repair the said refreigerator and to provide a defect free refrigerator upto the satisfaction of the complainant
O R D ER
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that complainant will produce the refreigerator before OP No.1 and OP No.1 after repair of the said refrigerator hand over the same in good running condition to the complainant. OP No.1 may take the assistance of OP No.2 if required, for the repair of the refriegerator,.The order is to be complied by the Ops within one month of production of said refrigerator by the complainant before OP No.1. The defaulting Ops will pay Rs.50/-(Rupees Fifty per day) .
Complaint is allowed in part on contest and ex-parte against OP No.2.
No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 9th day of March,2015,
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
