IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 28th day of April, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 58/2012 (Filed on 17.03.2012)
Between:
Susan Varghese,
Kalayil, Thiruvalla R.S. P.O.,
Kuttappuzha, Thiruvalla. … Complainant.
And:
1. Reema Marketing Enterprises,
Kavumbhagom P.O.,
Thiruvalla.
2. Service Agent,
Cool Tech Refrigeration,
Central Tower,
Cross Junction,
Thiruvalla – 1.
3. Manager,
Teck Care India Pvt. Ltd.,
(Videocon),
Kandathil Building,
Karshaka Road,
Panampilly Nagar,
Ernakulam – 682 016. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that she had purchased a 350 litre fridge for `18,000 from the first opposite party. The warranty offered by the company for the fridge is for one year and 6 years for the compressor. The second opposite party is the authorized service centre and the third opposite party is the manufacturer of the fridge. The complainant purchased this fridge for her personal use as well as for a small bakery running for her livelihood. The newly purchased fridge showed complaints within three months from the date of purchase. She intimated the complaint of the fridge to the first opposite party who gave the telephone number of the second opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the second opposite party who came and took the fridge to their service centre and returned the same claiming that the defects were cured and they also collected `1,500 for gas filling and ` 250 for transporting without giving any receipts. Even then the said fridge showed complaints. Thereafter the fridge was repaired by the second opposite party on several occasions and collected charges for the repairs. Even after all the repairs also, the fridge was not working properly and at last the fridge was burned and it was totally damaged beyond use and repairs. Consequent to the complaint to the third opposite party, third opposite party assured the complainant to replace the fridge and directed her to submit the bill and photograph of the fridge to the second opposite party. Accordingly, she had given the bill and other documents required by the third opposite party to the second opposite party. But so far they have not replaced the fridge in spite of the complainant’s demands for the same and in spite of the assurance of the third opposite party. The above said acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant was compelled to purchase a new fridge and due to the complaints of the fridge, the complainant had also sustained total loss of ` 54,190 under various heads. Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 54,190 from the opposite parties.
3. In this case, opposite parties are exparte.
4. On the basis of the allegation of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether the complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the fridge purchased from the first opposite party was totally destroyed due to its manufacturing defects and other complaints beyond use and repairs. The third opposite party is the manufacturer of the said fridge and the second opposite party is the authorized service centre of the third opposite party. The second opposite party repaired the fridge on several occasions, but it was not repaired properly. Moreover, the second opposite party collected repairing charges from the complainant though the said complaints and the repairs were within the warranty period. At last, on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, the third opposite party assured to replace the fridge. But they have not replaced the complainant’s damaged fridge in spite of their assurance. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant had suffered a total loss of ` 54,190 and the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount to the complainant.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and 5 documents were also produced which are marked as Exts. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the photocopy of the bill dated 11.0.1.2008 for ` 18,000 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant’s husband in respect of the fridge in question. Ext. A2 is the job sheet dated 19.11.2010 issued by the second opposite party. Ext. A3 is the warranty offered by the third opposite party. Ext. A4 is the cash receipt for ` 1,600 dated 04.11.2010 issued by the second opposite party for collecting the repairing charges. Ext. A5 is the copy of retail invoice dated 25.08.2010 issued from QRS Ltd., Kottayam showing the purchase of a new fridge by the complainant.
8. On the basis of the allegations of the complainant, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had purchased a fridge manufactured by the third opposite party from the first opposite party and the said fridge was repaired by the second opposite party on several occasions and collected the repairing charges ignoring the warranty benefits offered by the third opposite party. According to the complainant, even after repairs, the fridge was not working and now it is beyond use and repairs. Further, the third opposite party had not replaced the fridge in spite of the assurance given by them.
9. Since the opposite parties are exparte and there is no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant, the complainant’s allegation stands proved against opposite parties as unchallenged. Therefore, we find that the above said acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Though the complainant claims that she had a total loss of `54,190 due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties, she had not adduced any cogent evidence to establish the amount claimed by her. So we are not inclined to allow the complaint as prayed for. Therefore, this complaint can be allowed in part with cost and compensation.
10. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay a total amount of ` 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the damaged fridge and other costs and compensation within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount jointly and severally from the opposite parties with 12% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of April, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Susan Varghese.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the retail invoice dated 11.0.1.2008 for Rs.
18,000 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the
complainant’s husband.
A2 : Job sheet dated 19.11.2010 issued by the second opposite
party.
A3 : Warranty offered by the third opposite party.
A4 : Photocopy of the cash receipt for Rs. 1,600 dated
04.11.2010 issued by the second opposite party.
A5 : Photocopy of retail invoice dated 25.08.2010 issued from
QRS Ltd., Kottayam.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Susan Varghese, Kalayil, Thiruvalla R.S. P.O.,
Kuttappuzha, Thiruvalla.
(2) Reema Marketing Enterprises, Kavumbhagom P.O.,
Thiruvalla.
(3) Service Agent, Cool Tech Refrigeration, Central Tower,
Cross Junction, Thiruvalla – 1.
(4) Manager, Teck Care India Pvt. Ltd., (Videocon),
Kandathil Building, Karshaka Road, Panampilly Nagar,
Ernakulam – 682 016.
(5) The Stock File.
