Kerala

Trissur

CC/16/146

Ramdas.P.M - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,st.George electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K.S.Sujithlal &K.V.Unnimon

30 Nov 2020

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
AYYANTHOLE
THRISSUR-3
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/146
( Date of Filing : 16 Feb 2016 )
 
1. Ramdas.P.M
s/o marathuveetil Appumarar.chowoor
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Proprietor,st.George electronics
(p) Ltd thrissur
2. The managing Director,
l.G.electronics Anna nagar chennai
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. C.T.Sabu PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Sreeja.S MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Adv.K.S.Sujithlal &K.V.Unnimon, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 30 Nov 2020
Final Order / Judgement

O R D E R

By  Sri.C.T.Sabu, President

          The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a refrigerator on 27/8/15 namely LG    from the 1st opposite party  manufactured by the 2nd opposite party.  At the time of the purchase the opposite party assured that the fridge is having good quality and also was ready for better service for the same.  But after few days, specifically on 16/10/15 the fridge became defective.  That was happened only because low quality materials and parts are used for the product. The complainant repeatedly approached the 1st opposite party for the above mentioned issue of non working and perusal for compliance warranty conditions.  Finally a lawyer notice was caused.  Even then the opposite party was not  agree to replace the defective part or machine as agreed in the warranty stipulation.  The opposite party was willfully evaded from the responsibility by saying  one or other reasons.  This will amounts deficiency in service and  unfair trade practice.    Hence this complaint is filed.

          2.On receiving the notice issued by the Commission opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed detailed version.  In the version 1st opposite party admitted that the fridge was purchased by the complainant.  But other averments  regarding the defect of the fridge is denied.  And at the same time contended that if there is any manufacturing defect 2nd opposite party is only liable for the complaint.  As a dealer he is not responsible for the manufacturing defects.  The 2nd opposite party called absent and set exparte. 

 

          3. Points for consideration are that :

1 Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties ?

2) If so what reliefs and costs ?

          4. The matter is posted for evidence.  From the part of the complainant, a detailed proof affidavit is filed.  In his affidavit he affirmed and explained all the averments made in the complaint in detail. From  his part  5 documents were produced and marked as Exts.P1 to P5.  Ext.P1 series are copy of invoice and  warranty card, Ext.P2 is  copy of lawyer notice, Ext.P3 is postal receipt, Ext.P4 is A/D card and Ext.P5 is Owners Manual.  From the side of 1st opposite party no evidence is adduced.  The complainant filed a petition for inspection of the product by an expert commissioner to prove the defects and   present condition of the product.  The commissioner submitted a detailed report which is marked as Ext.C1.

          5. We have gone through the affidavit, documents and the report of the commissioner in detail.  The commissioner in his report categorically stated that the  electronic printed circuit board o the equipment which houses a lot of electronic component is faulty.  In his conclusion he has stated that the inspected refrigerator is faulty and the faulty component is the electronic printed circuit board.  The report of the commissioner is  enough and more to prove the case of the complainant.  No contra evidences are adduced by the opposite parties.  The complainant is very well proved his case in all aspects.  There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore we are inclined to allow this complaint.

          6. In the result the opposite parties are directed to replace the fridge  with a new one to the satisfaction of  the complainant for the same price and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost and compensation to the complainant.  Opposite parties are directed to comply the order within one month from receiving the copy of this order.  If failed, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.31,500/- (Rupees thirty one thousand and five hundred only) along with 12% interest from the date of complaint.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the  30th day  of  November 2020.

 

Sd/-                      Sd/-                                          Sd/-

Sreeja.S                Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair         C.T.Sabu

Member                Member                                  President

         

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext.P1 series - copy of invoice and  warranty card,

Ext.P2  copy of lawyer notice,

Ext.P3 postal receipt,

Ext.P4 A/D card

Ext.P5 is Owner’s Manual

Ext.C1 – Commission report

 

                                                                                           Id/-

                                                                                       President

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. C.T.Sabu]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sreeja.S]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.