Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/14/122

MRS.MINI JACOB - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL SHANKAR

15 Jul 2014

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 8th day of July 2014.

 

 

Filed on : 11/07/2013

PRESENT:

 

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

 

CC.494/2013

 

Between

Vivek Kumar, : Complainant

S/o. R.N. Balakrishnan, (By Adv.Rajesh Vijayendran,

Now res. at ‘Aashiyana’, 100 B, 35/191, Automobile road,

Balakrishna Menon road, Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025)

Edapally, Cochin-682 024.

 

And

 

1. Whirlpool of India Ltd., : Opposite parties

Regd. Office-A4, MIDC, (1^st O.P. by Adv. Biju Harinaran

Ranjan Gaon, M/s. KNB Nair Associates,

Taluka Shiror, Pune District, 2^nd floor, Morning Star Building

Pin-419 204, Maharashtra, Kacheripady, Ernakulam,

Rep. by its Manager. Cochin-682 018)

 

2. Global Whirlpool Service,

CC 43/2115-A, Kanakam Gopal (Ops. 2&3 absent)

Building, SRM Road, Kaloor,

Kochin-682 018.

Rep. by its Service Manager.

 

3. Nandilath G. Mart,

Door No.XXXIII/1114,

Toll Junction, Edapally,

Cochin-24, Rep. by its Manager.

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

A. Rajesh, President.

 

The case of the complainant is as follows:

On 28-03-2012 the complainant purchased a 1 tonne chrome silver series Air Conditioner from the 3^rd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. Within days after installing the Air Conditioner, it developed series of defects. After repeated complaints the technicians of the 2^nd opposite party checked the unit and reported that the complaints have been rectified. However the very same defects persisted, following which further complaints were registered. The 2^nd opposite party informed that the blower of the indoor unit an integral part of the Air Conditioner has been damaged. The 1^st opposite party provided a new indoor unit. Nearly after one week of replacement, the Air Conditioner began showing the very same defects. In spite of repeated repairs the 2^nd opposite party could not repair the same. At that juncture the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the Air Conditioner. But it was insisted by the opposite parties that the complainant has to pay an additional amount of Rs. 5,300/- for replacing the old Air Conditioner. The complainant is entitled to get replacement of the defective A.C. with a new one together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The Air Conditioner was purchased on 28-03-2012. Since the product was defective the complainant was provided with a brand new Air Conditioner on 18-05-2012. After the Air Conditioner was replaced the 1^st periodical maintenance was given on 01-02-2013. Thereafter complaints regarding water leakage was received on 14-02-2013 and 02-03-2013

 

 

 

which were rectified properly. But no leakage was noticed. But the complainant was adamant that the product is defective and that it should be

replaced. The offer for replacing the product after deducting the deprecation amount of Rs. 5,300/- was given only to satisfy the complainant to maintain good customer relationship. There is no defects with the AC at present. The complainant is no entitled to get any relief from the 1^st opposite party.

3. Despite receipt of notice from this Forum the opposite parties 2 and 3 opted to remain absent for reasons of their own not stated or explained. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exbts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 1^st opposite party. Heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the A.C.

with a new one?

ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and

costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

 

5. Point No. i. Admittedly on 28-03-2012 the complainant purchased an air conditioner from the 3^rd opposite party at a price of Rs. 19,750/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party evident from Exbt. A1 retail invoice. Exbt. A2 goes to show that the 1^st opposite party provided one year comprehensive warranty for the machine and additional 4 years warranty for the compressor. Exbt. A3 is the appliance replaced advice dated 18-05-2012 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

 

 

 

Accordingly the 1^st opposite party replaced the Air Conditioner with a new one in June 2013.

6. According to the complainant the replaced Air Conditioner as well became defunct and he is entitled to get replacement of the same with a new one with out any charges. The 1^st opposite party maintains that they agreed to replace the said unit as a gesture of goodwill and requested the

complainant to pay Rs. 5,300/- towards depreciation. It is pertinent to note that the 1^st opposite party demanded Rs. 5,300/- as per Exbt. A5 e-mail dated 23-04-2013 not towards depreciation but towards the following heads.

 

Calculation of replacement
A	Old MRP	25,500
B	New MRP	30,300
C	Price deff (B-A)	4,800
D	Transportation for ageing more than 6 months	500
E	The total replacement charges (C+D)	5,300

 

It is evident that the price quoted in Exbt A5 is not that of the complainant’s Air Conditioner why because he purchased the Air Conditioner vide Exbt. A1 for Rs. 19,750/-. More over as per Exbt. A5 the 1^st opposite party has deducted Rs. 4,800/- towards difference in price and not towards depreciation. In short, the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the Air Conditioner with a brand new Air Conditioner of the same price with warranty according to the choice of the complainant.

 

 

 

 

7. Point No. ii. In this case the complainant has had to run from pillar to post to get his grievances redressed especially when the opposite parties turned a blind eye towards the lawful demand of the complainant.

Compensation and costs of the proceedings are called for we fix it at Rs. 2,000/-.

 

8.In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

i. the opposite parties 1 & 3 shall jointly and severally replace the Air

Conditioner of the complainant with a new one of the same price with

fresh warranty according to the choice of the complainant.

ii. the opposite parties 1 & 3 shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- to the

complainant towards compensation and costs of the proceedings.

 

The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8th day of July 2014.

 

 

Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

 

Forwarded/By Order,

 

 

Senior superintendent.

 

Copy of order despatched on:

By Post: By Hand:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix

 

Complainant’s exhibits :

 

Ext. A1 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 28-03-2012

A2 : Brochure

A3 : Replacement advice

A4 : Photos

A5 : copies of letters

 

Opposite party’s exhibits : Nil