By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The complainant stated this grievances as follows:-
1. On 02/07/2018, the complainant had purchased a refrigerator (PanasonicModel No.NR-BL307) from the first opposite party by the financial assistance of the second opposite party. The complainant remitted Rs. 35,000/- as price of the refrigerator. According to the complainant, the manufacturer had provided one year warranty to the product and the financier, the second opposite party, also provided another one year warranty to the same. But the refrigerator became defective and not worked to serve the purpose of refrigerator. Then the complainant contacted the third opposite party for rectification. The representative of the second opposite party came after two months and examined the product. The third opposite party informed the complainant that there was no defect or complaint to the product. But the condition of the refrigerator remained as same and there was no proper functioning of the product. So the complainant directly approached the third opposite party. After one month of time, one of the representatives of the third opposite party again came and inspected the refrigerator. The third opposite party informed the complainant that parts of the refrigerator were defective and directed to make complaint in toll free number of the opposite party. Accordingly a complaint was registered by the complainant. Then the opposite party assured of doing repair work within 24 hours. But no action was taken by the opposite party. The complainant again directly contacted the opposite party to get repaired the refrigerator. But the opposite party did not repaired the refrigerator in the manoeuvre of received parts were not suitable for repair works. The complainant contacted the opposite parties for several times but no action was taken by them to repair or replace the refrigerator. The refrigerator is still remaining in idle condition. The acts of the opposite parties caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The opposite parties committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. So the complainant approached the Commission praying for a direction to replace the refrigerator or refund the amount paid for purchasing the refrigerator or pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite parties. The firstand second opposite parties received notice but did not turn up and not filed version. Hence Commission set them as exparte. The third opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version.
3. In the version, the third opposite party contended that complaint is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal with compensatory cost. The opposite party stated that they are responsible for rendering services to the product of the first opposite party. According to the opposite party, the service of the opposite party is available only to the complaints registered through official website of the manufacturer during the warranty period. In this case, the complainant did not make any registration with regard to the complaints pertaining to refrigerator during the period of warranty. So an unregistered complaint in the official website of the manufacturer need be attended by the opposite party. So the complaint is filed to create trouble to the opposite party and the opposite party prayed for compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) from the complainant. It is stated by the opposite party that there was no knowledge with regard the purchase of the subject refrigerator made on 02/07/2018 by the complainant. The manufacturer is providing only one year warranty to the product and if the complainant got additional one year warranty as claimed in the complaint is purely depend upon the proof at hand of the complainant. The opposite party averred that, the service centre did not receive any complaints from the complainant between 02/07/2018 to 20/09/2019. The opposite party received only two complaints referred by the manufacturer with regard to the subject refrigerator. It is stated that one complaint was referred as job No: R200919375866 dated 20/09/2019 and another one was job No. R 010720829704 dated 01/07/2020. According to the opposite party two complaints were registered only after the warranty period. So the complainant is liable to pay for the services received from the opposite party. At the time service reported on 01/07/2020, the opposite party purchased parts worth Rs. 3,455/- (Rupees Three thousand four hundred and fifty five only), but the complainant did make payment for the same and it remained unused in the custody the opposite party. So the opposite party also prayed for a direction to the complainant to refund Rs. 3,455/- as the cost of the parts purchased for repairing work. The opposite party denied all allegations raised in the complaint. If any additional warranty is provided by the second opposite party, then document is required to provide service to the subject product.
4. The complainant and the third opposite party filed affidavits. The complainant produced documents along with the complaint. But no attempt was made to bring it in evidence. So no documents are marked from the side of the complainant. But the third opposite party produced documents and marked as Ext. B1 to B3 documents. Ext. B1 document is the copy of Job sheet dated 20/09/2019 showing that the complainant availed the service of the opposite party. Ext. B2 document is the copy of job sheet dated 01/07/2020 showing the details of service availed by the complainant. Ext. B3 document is the copy of estimate of the cost of the parts and total repair required for the refrigerator.
5. Heard the complainant and the opposite party. Perused affidavits and documents. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are:-
- Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service towards the complainant as alleged as the complaint?
- Relief and cost?
6. Point No. (1) and (2):-
The complainant averred that he purchased a refrigerator from the first opposite party on 02/07/2018 after availing financial assistance from the second opposite party. Though the complainant produced copy of invoice bill and warranty certificate along with complaint no steps were taken to bring the same as documentary evidence. It is stated in the complaint and affidavit that the refrigerator became defective after 7 months from the date of purchase of the refrigerator. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties did not repair the refrigerator even though repeated demands were made out. It is stated in the complaint that the defect was found during the coverage of warranty period. According to the complainant, the manufacturer assured one year warranty and additional one year warranty was also provided by the second opposite party. But in the version was well as affidavit, the third opposite party vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the complainant with regard to duration of warranty. The opposite party contended that the service centre did not receive any registered complaints from the side of the complainant with regard to subject refrigerator during warranty period. It is further averred that the complaints were received only after the expiry of one year warranty. According to the opposite party, the subject product carries only one year warranty. The opposite party produced copy of job sheet dated 20/09/2019 showing the details of service availed by the complainant from the opposite party. The copy of job sheet is marked as Ext. B1 document. On 01/07/2020, the complainant again availed the service of the opposite party and the job sheet issued at the time of second service and copy of job sheet is marked as Ext. B2 document. The copy of estimate of repair work also produced by the opposite party and same is marked as Ext. B3 document. When evaluating the evidence it can be seen that there is no contra evidence available regard to the date of purchase i.e, 02/07/2018. The complainant not produced any document to show that the defect of the refrigerator was found within one year from the date of purchase. Moreover, the complainant also failed to adduce evidence with regard to the extended warranty of another one year as provided by the second opposite party. So the Commission finds that the alleged defect was found after the expiry of warranty period. The complainant demanded for replacement of refrigerator or refund of its price in the complaint. But the manufacturer was not made a party in the proceedings. The claim for replacement can be considered only after making the manufacturer in the party array. So there is non-joinder of necessary party in the proceedings. There is no evidence available before the Commission to show that there is latent defect in the product. Ext. B1 to B3 documents clearly shows that the third opposite party acted upon the request made by the complainant. So the Commission cannot find out deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The Commission is discarding the counter claim put forwarded by the third opposite party as it is outside the purview of jurisdiction of the Commission. The complainant thoroughly failed to provide evidence to support the contentions raised in the complaint. Hence complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 20th day of April, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1 : Document is the copy of Job sheet dated 20/09/2019 showing that the
complainant availed the service of the opposite party.
Ext.B2 : Document is the copy of job sheet dated 01/07/2020 showing the details of
service availed by the complainant.
Ext.B3 : Document is the copy of estimate of the cost of the parts and total repair
required for the refrigerator.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
