IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on 17-04-2012
Present
In
1. Sri. K. Anirudhan, Member , (President in charge )
2. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
C.C.No.132/22012
between
Complainant :- Sri. M. Gopinathan , Sree jyothi,Chirakkadavammuri, Kayamkulam Village, Alappuzha. | Opposite parties:- 1. Sri.Satheesan, Proprietor, DharsanaTraders,Sayujyam , Complex,K.P.Road, Kayamkulam,Alappuzha. 2. The Manager, Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co, Ltd, Door No. 9/418/A4, A5,A6,A8,A9, NearInfopark,Edachira,Kakkanadu,Kochi. |
O R D E R
SRI.K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. M.Gopinathan has filed this complaint before the forum alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The allegations of the complainant are as follows:- He had purchased a Godrej Refreigerator from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs. 14800/-. After accepting the said amount from him, the first opposite party issued the cash receipt vide NO:1346 dated 30/10/06 . The first opposite party had also given the warranty card at the time of the purchase of the said item. The warranty card shows that the Refrigerator comes with a unique 10 year Rust protection plan. At the time of the purchase, the first opposite party assured that in case of rust form with in the Refrigerator within the warranty period, they will supply a fresh one. As per the said assurance on the side of the first opposite party, he had purchased the Refrigerator from the first opposite party. The opposite party is engaged in the sales of item of Godrej and other item in Kayakulam area. While, in the use of the set during the peiod of 2008, the lower side of the said Refrigerator became rust. This was communicated to the opposite party along with the complaint of compressor and timer . But the first opposite party has not given any proper response for the said complaint and drag on the matter with out taking any positive approach; and committed long delay from 2008 onwards . While so , 2011 October onwards the Refrigerator becomes fully defective and not function. He had contacted the first opposite party and as per their direction, he had contacted the service provider of the first opposite party - M/s JS services . After the inspection of the said Refrigerator by the sevice provider, they have collected a sum of Rs. 950/- from him towards the cost of one instruement for the Refrigerator. After that , on 29.10.11, the said service provider again inspected the set and found that the front door of the Refrigerator is fully covered with rust and that was reported. He had also intimated that matter to the first opposite party. He had contacted the first opposite party several times, and at that time the first opposite party had intimated him that they will replace the set, after giving intimation to the company. Since there was no positive steps on the side of the opposite party, he sent Advocate notice on 07.02.12 to the opposite party, requesting to replace the set. But the opposite parties have not turned up and he had not obtained any relief from them. Hence this complaint for getting proper relief.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They have appeared before the forum . First opposite party filed objection.
3. In the objection it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the forum. The complainant had not filed any objection before them, eventhough he had purchased the set, on 30/10/06. It is stated that they are the only the dealer and that the purchaser has satisfied with the working condition of the refrigerator before the purchase. They are not given any under taking to the complainant, regarding the supply of new one, in case it became rust and not given any offer before the purchase. They are not the competent authority to furnish the warranty and that the company alone is competent to give the warranty. During the year 2008, the complainant had not contacted them, with the complaint of the Refrigerator and the compressor. It is further stated that they have not given any under taking to replace the set to the complainant. If the service provider had collected a sum of Rs. 950/- from the complainant they are not liable for that. They have not served any notice from the complainant vide dated 07/02/2012. It is further stated that if the Refrigerator had become defective due to the use of the set by the complainant, they are not liable for that.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties the forum has raised the following issues for consideration :-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties ?
2) Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the replacement of the set?
4)Regarding compensation and costs.
5.Issues 1 to 4 ; Complainant has produced documents in evidence in support of his case. Documents , marked as Ext.A 1 to Ext.A8. Ext.A1 is the original cash credit bill dated 30/10/06 issued by the first opposite party at the time of purchase of the Refrigerator by the complainant . The bill was for an amount of Rs. 14800/-. Ext.A2 is the warranty Card issued by the first opposite party along with the purchase bill. The warranty card shows that the warranty is for an period of 10 years from the date of purchase. The warranty is for ‘Rust Protection Plan’. Ext.A3 is the delivery note of the Refreigerator after rectification of the mechanical defects , conducted by the authorized services provider. Ext.A4 is the Receipt dated 29/10/11 issued after rectifying the defects of the door of the refreigerator.
Ext.A5 is the postal receipt.
Ext.A6 is the copy of the Advocate notice dated. 07.02.2012.
Ext.A7 is the postal acknowledgment.
Ext.A8 is the receipt for Rs. 950/- collected from the complainant towards the service charge of JS services. Opposite parties have not produced any documents in evidence. We have heard the matter in detail, from both sides.
6. We have fully verified the entire matter of this case in detail and perused the documents produced by the complainant . Opposite parties have submitted that they have no documents to be produced in evidence; and opposite parties have explained the matter.
7. It is alleged that the complainant had purchased the said refrigerator from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs. 14800/-and after collecting the said amount from the complainant, the first opposite party had issued the receipt dated 30.10.2006 to the complainant (Ext.A1). At the time of the sale of the said Refrigerator , the first opposite party had issued the warranty card to the complainant. (Ext.A2) The warranty card shows that the warranty is for a period of 10 years from the date of purchase , against the Rust protection, It is alleged by the complainant that during the period of 2008, it was noticed the formation of rust occurred in the bottom of the said fridge , and have complaint of the compressor and Timer of the Refrigerator. It is further alleged that the complainant had intimated the above details of the defects to the first opposite party. But the complainant has not obtained any positive relief from the opposite parties. Since there was no response on the side of the opposite parties, he had sent advocate notice on 07.02.2012 ( Ext. A6 ) to the opposite parties . But the opposite parties have not turned up. It is to be further noted that the defects occurred in the Refrigerator is within the warranty period. So the opposite parties are fully entitled to the supply a new one to the complainant as requested by the complainant , since the defects of the set cannot be rectified fully by the service provider of the first opposite party earlier .
8. The purposeful deniel of releasing a new one , to the complainant as per the warranty and the failure to comply with the assurance of the first opposite party, will amounts to deficiency in service and negligence. It is noticed that the opposite parties are willfully evaded from their liability by raising unnecessary contention in the version. The contention raised by the first opposite party cannot be accepted since it has no merit . The whole action taken by the opposite parties in this case are wholly illegal and arbitrary. The complainant is fully entitled to get a new set, as per the warranty condition. There is no bonafides in the action taken by the first opposite party. Since there is deficiency in services; negligence cheating and unfair trade practice on the side of the first opposite party; the complainant is entitled to get compensation including punitive costs from the first opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case; we are of the view that the allegation put forward by the complainant is to be treated as genuine and that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, We hereby ordered that the first opposite party has to give a new Godrej Refrigerator, set having the same specification and have the same price to the complainant after collecting the defective Refrigerator from him . If the similar set of the Godrej Refrigerator is not available, the first opposite party shall release a new set having the same prices and specification of the earlier set with warranty to the complainant. There is deficiency in service negligence ,cheating and unfair trade practice on the side of the first opposite party by way of purposeful denial to release a new Refrigerator to the complainant in time even though the defects occurred within the warranty period. Considering the all facts and circumstances of this case, we further ordered that the first opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to complainant as compensation for his mental agony; pain, harassment inconvenience and loss . After verifying the whole facts of this case ; we are of the further view that the opposite party shall pay punitive costs to the complainant. So we hereby direct the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only ) to the complainant as punitive costs; and further ordered that the first opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only ) as costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The first opposite party shall comply with this order, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012.
Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/-Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - original cash credit bill dated 30/10/06 issued by the first opposite party
Ext.A2 -warranty Card issued by the first opposite party
Ext.A3 -delivery note of the Refreigerator
Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 - postal receipt.
Ext.A6 - copy of the Advocate notice dated. 07.02.2012.
Ext.A7 - positive acknowledgment.
Ext.A8 - receipt for Rs. 950/ the Receipt dated 29/10/11
Evidence of the opposite parties- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F
.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by-
