President by Miss R. Pattnayak, President.
The Complainant Smt. Anita Meher has filed this Complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service.
In brief, the case of the Complainant is that on Dt.21/01/2009, he had purchased one videocon fridge vide model No.5183, SL No.1881208772 and one videocon CTV vide model No. VCN 20EGP,SL No.411208010131600470 from Opposite Party No.1(one) with the terms and conditions as stipulated on the warranty card issued at the time of purchase for a consideration amount of Rs.12,500/-(Rupees twelve thousand five hundred)only. At the time of purchase of the said items, the cash bill bearing No.5026 was issued by Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant showing purchase of the items.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) is the authorized dealer of videocon company and Opposite Party No.2(two) is the service agent authorized by the Company.
The Complainant alleges that on Dt.14/06/2012, the compressor which is the vital component of the fridge got defunct with out any fault on her part. So she immediately approached the Opposite Party No.2(two) at the instance of Opposite Party No.1(one), with a view to getting it repaired but the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not respond and insisted her to purchase a new compressor with due payment of cash. Finding no other way the Complainant was compelled to purchase a new compressor from the OP No.2(two) on Dt.16/06/2012 for a consideration amount of Rs.3400/-(Rupees three thousand four hundred)only vide money receipt No.222.
It has been pleaded by the Complainant that since the compressor became defunct within the warranty period and it their duty of the OPs to provide a new Compressor with out any monetary charge to her. Non-supply of the same amount to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are violating the terms and condition of the warranty issued by the company. On the other hand the complainant suffered heavy loss ,mental agency and harassment for which the Opposite parties are held liable.
Being aggrieved she has approached this forum with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to refund of Rs.3,400/-(Rupees three thousand four hundred)only with interest to her towards cost of the compressor which has been charged by them along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards mental agony and suffering.
The Complainant has filed the following documents to prove her case along with decision of Hon'ble State Commission.
Copy of cash memo of Tripathy Refrigeration bearing No.222 Dt.16/06/2012.
Copy of Cash memo of Sanjay sales showing purchase of videocon fridge.
Copy of warranty card.
Notices were duly served on the opposite parties . Opposite parties appeared through their Advocate and filed their written version on Dt.03/12/2013 separately.
The OP No.1(one) in his version has submitted that the Complainant has purchased the afore said videocon fridge on payment from him having one year warranty for refrigerator and 5 years warranty for the compressor. Through he did not deny the sale of the fridge but took the stands that the Complainant never lodged any Complaint before him or O.P. no.2 or before manufacturer. The Complainant never produced the defective fridge before him. If the Complainant have reported him, then the same defect could have been communicated to the company. Opposite Party No.1(one) further submitted that the case is bad for non joinder of necessary party as she was not made manufacturing company as necessary party in this case. So he prayed to dismiss the Complaint case as it is devoid of merit. In supprt of his case he has filed the decisions of Hon'ble National Commission.
The OP No 2(two) in his version while admitting the purchase of compressor by the Complainant from him for a consideration of Rs. 3400/-, took the stand that he has no knowledge about the purchase of fridge from Opposite Party No.1(one). Since there are some terms and conditions to period service during warranty period, he is unable to provide service beyond limitation prescribed by the Company. It is further submitted by O. P. No.2 that he is authorised only to give service at Bargarh and Nuapada District only. The Complainant belongs to Subarnapur. There fore prayed for dismissal of the case. Both the Opposite Parties Contended that no deficiency in service has been committed by them and also there is no unfair trade practice in their part as alleged by the Complainant.
Heard both the parties and perused the documents and Citations available on record.
After perusal this forum found that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and (two) admitted most of the version of Complainant as follows:-
OP No.1
OP No.1(one) admitted the purchase of videocon fridge from him, which is further proved through the copy of the retail invoice filed by the Complainant vide Bill no. 5026 dated 31/01/2009.
OP No.1(one) admitted that he is the authorized dealers and OP No.2(two) in the authorized service agent of the Company.
OP No.1(one) admitted that the warranty period of videocon fridge is one year from the date of purchase and the warranty period of the compressor is five years which is further proved through the warranty Booklet.
OP No.2
(i)Opposite Party No.2(two) admitted that he is the authorized service center of Company.
(ii)It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.2(two) that the warranty period of videocon fridge is one year from the date of purchase and the warranty period of the compressor is five years.
It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.2(two) that, the Complainant had purchased a compressor from him on consideration amount of Rs.3,400/-(Rupees three thousand four thousand)only vide receipt No.222, which is further proved by the copy of Money Receipt showing that a sum of Rs. 3400/- has been paid by the complainant towards purchase of Compressor.
So the admitted fact need not be required to be proved again. The fridge was purchased during the year 2009. Complaint regarding defect in compressor arose in the year 2012. As averred by both the parties the warranty period for compressor is 5 years. During argument and in her petition also the complainant has submitted that she has intimated the O.P. No.1 on the very date of malfunctioning of the said compressor and at the instance of O.P. No.1 she approached O.P.No.2 with a view to getting it repaired. To which the O.Ps submitted during argument that the Complainant never complaint before them. If the Complainant have reported them then the same defect could have been rectified. It is unbelievable that the complainant never complaint about the defect before filing of the case Normally a consumer knocks the door of the consumer forum for redressal when even he/she get harassed by the trader or manufacturer. Hence we do not find any reason to take a contrary view of his claim. It is the duty and responsibility of the O.Ps to assist the purchaser to proceed with the process because a purchase occurred with some hope and aspirations which are not fulfilled in the instant case. The Opposite Parties should maintain transparency while selling their product. taking the plea that hey have no knowledge about the defect can not be acceptable because the part which the complainant wants to rectify is within the warranty period. Hence the O.Ps are bound to rectify. Compelling the to purchased a new compressor instead of providing her a new one free of cst as per the term and conditions specify for the compressor definitely speaks about the unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties. The complainant is a consumer and the O.Ps are trader and service provider, this inaction of O.Ps definitely amounts to deficiency in service for which the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed and tha ops are liable to Compressor the Complainant from what she suffered. In this case the decision filed by the Complainant holds good.
In these circumstances, the Complainant petition is allowed.
Hence ordered:
O R D E R
(i)The Opposite Party No.2(two) is directed to refund Rs.3,400/-(Rupees three
thousand four hundred)only with interest at the rate of 9%(nine percent) per
annum from the date of purchase i.e. 16/06/2012 to the date of receiving.AND
(ii)The Opposite party No.1(one) and No.2(two) jointly and severally liable to give compensation of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only for mental agony, suffering and towards litigation cost within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent)interest till the realization of actual payment.
Case is disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak) ( Smt. Anjali Behera) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
