BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 10th day of April, 2015
C.C.No.107/2014
Between:
Mr.Bala Krishna,
S/o Nagendrum,
Aged about 49 Years.
H.No.87/772, 2nd Floor,
Madhavi Nagar,
Kurnool-518 004. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Shri Hema Electronics,
Represented by its Proprietor,
40/354-56, 55 Park Road,
Kurnool-518 001.
2. Mr.Shri Bhagyalaxmi Refrigerations
Represented by its Proprietor Mr.Narasimha
C/o Whirlpool of India Limited,
Plot No.6 and 7, 1-11-252,
A and B, Survey No.183,
Ground Floor, Gowra Klassic,
Behind Shoppers Stop, Begumpet,
Hyderabad-500 016. …OPPOSITE PARTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and opposite party No.1 called absent and set exparte and Sri.K.V.Uday Bhaskar, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, President)
C.C. No.107/2014
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite parties to return the cost of the refrigerator Rs.12,315/- with interest at 24% from the date of purchase.
- To return Rs.2,200/- which was paid by the complainant for replacing the defective freezer box and for filling the gas.
- To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the compensation for causing mental agony and hardship.
(d)To pay costs of the complaint.
- To pass any other order or orders that are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief run as follows:- On 12.11.2010 the complainant purchased one Refrigerator by name Whirlpool 180 lts., Gen New Roy Titanium 58 bearing No.11898INC101726352 manufactured by Whirlpool of India Limited for an amount of Rs.12,315/- from opposite party No.1, vide invoice No.862. The warranty period is 5 years. After its purchase, within 3 months the Refrigerator started giving troubles by not functioning properly. On 09.02.2010 the opposite party No.1 carried out the repairs. But repeatedly it used to give trouble. On 12.04.2011 and 10.01.2012 the complaint of the complainant the mechanic of the opposite parties came and attended to repairs. But not rectified the defects completely.
Again in the first week of April, 2013 the Refrigerator started giving the same problem of over ice formation in the freezer box, resulting to bulging and development of cracks in the walls of freezer box and stopped the cooling system. On 08.04.2013 the complainant lodged a complaint to the service centre and opposite party No.1, and also through online to Hyderabad centre vide complaint No.05059. After several reminders and calls opposite parties advised the complainant to send the defective Refrigerator to Bharath Refrigerator, Kurnool. Accordingly on 10.04.2013 the complainant shifted the same. On 13.04.2013 the said service centre personnel replaced the freezer box and also filled the gas by collecting Rs.2,200/- vide challan No.80 from the complainant, even during the warranty period. After shifting it to the complainant’s house, there was no cooling, resulting the vegetables and eatables to perish. Immediately the complainant informed about the same to opposite party No.1. But there was no response from him. On 27.11.2013 the complainant registered another online complaint bearing No.14550, again on 27.12.2013 another online complaint bearing No.11018 and lastly on 22.01.2014 another online complaint bearing No.07232 was lodged. Despite of all these complaints, both opposite parties are reluctant to replace the defective piece. The said Refrigerator is giving repeated troubles since the time of purchase due to manufacturing defects. The complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and hardship due to non cooperation of both opposite parties either to attend to repairs of the Refrigerator trouble freezer box or to replace the same. He also got issued legal notice through his counsel on 28.02.2014 for which opposite party No.2 replied by expressing his consent to replace the Refrigerator, after deduction of 50% depreciation + collecting Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges. The said offer made by opposite party No.2 is unreasonable as the Refrigerator is not working properly since the begining and it is of manufacturing defect piece. Hence he prays to pass an order by directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to return the cost of the Refrigerator Rs.12,315/- with interest at 24%, to return Rs.2,200/- which was paid by the complainant for replacing the defective freezer box and for filling gas, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship and also to pay costs of the CC.
3. On service of notice opposite party No.1 remained exparte. Opposite party No.2 engaged the counsel and filed counter the contents of which in brief run as follows. In paras 1 to 5 of the counter he denied all the allegations made by the complainant in para 1 to 4 of his complaint specifically.
In para 6 of the counter it is stated, the complainant purchased the Refrigerator on 12.11.2010 which bears one year comprehensive warranty on Refrigerator and 4 years warranty on compressor. The complainant never approached the opposite party No.2 or any authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 within the period of limitation i.e., one year from the date of purchase for any rectification of the Refrigerator. The complainant asked for installation of the Refrigerator at the time of purchase and the same was carried away at the time of purchase. Opposite party No.2 is a reputed home appliance company and having its operations all over globe and will take care of its customers and extend all necessary help and attend to any grievance of their customers within stipulated time. The complainant filed this complaint only to make undue claim for which he is not entitled. The complainant approached the Honourable Forum after the lapse of one year time and with unclean hands, only to make unlawful gain. Even till today, the complainant is making use of the appliance purchased from opposite party No.2 which is running under good condition. Hence he prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant filed sworn affidavit in support of his contention. In the sworn affidavit he reinstated all the facts which are mentioned in his complaint. The complainant purchased Refrigerator on 12.11.2010 for Rs.12,315/- and he faced the problem within 3 months after purchase of the Refrigerator till lodging of the complaint before this Forum. Apart from his sworn affidavit he also produced as many as 9 documents in support of his contention and all those documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9.
Opposite parties did not choose to file any sworn affidavit or oral evidence in support of their defence.
5. The counsel for complainant submitted written and oral arguments in support of his contention. Opposite parties did not choose to file either written arguments or to submit oral arguments. In the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant, he reiterated all the facts which are mentioned in the complaint and also in the sworn affidavit of the complainant. He submitted the offer made by the opposite party No.2 in his reply that if the complainant prepared to pay 50% of the costs of the Refrigerator after deduction 50% towards depreciation + one thousand towards transport charges, is not tenable as the Refrigerator piece which was sold to the complainant is having manufacturing defect and as the complainant faced problem with it since the time of its purchase. He also relied on a decision reported in II (2013) CPJ Page 534 (NC). Hence he prays to allow the complaint as prayed for.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in attending to the repairs of the Refrigerator?
- If so? To what relief the complainant is entitled?
7. POINT No.i:- There is no dispute about purchase of Refrigerator by the complainant from opposite party No.1 for Rs.12,315/- on 12.11.2010 under Ex.A1. It is the case of the complainant, it has started giving trouble within 3 months from the date of purchase. Opposite parties are also not disputing with regard to complaints made by the complainant from time to time and rendering of the service by them by sending their personnel to attend and rectifying the defects with which the complainant suffered. In fact the opposite parties collected a sum of Rs.2,200/- on 1304.2013 when they replace freezer box and filled gas and issued a receipt, for that amount, which is marked as Ex.A5. Even after all the replacement of freezer box, filter and gas filling in the Refrigerator, the defect was not rectified. Being vexed with the Refrigerator, complainant wrote a letter to opposite party No.2 customer service centre on 12.04.2013 which is marked as Ex.A4, by mentioning all the problems with which he suffered with the Refrigerator since the time of its purchase. As there was no reply from the customer service centre, he got issued a notice through his counsel (Office copy) of which is marked as Ex.A8 dated 28.02.2014. Opposite party No.2 got issued a reply to Ex.A8 under Ex.A9. Admittedly opposite party No.2 came with a proposal in their reply, it the party insists for replacement, the same can be done as per the depreciation policy of the company. The depreciation will be calculated at 50% and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation as the appliance was used for almost 3 years and 2 months.. But the counsel for complainant submitted the complainant purchased the new Refrigerator from opposite party No.1 having confidence and the name and reputation of the Whirlpool Company. But unfortunately complainant faced with a lot of problems with it right from the time of its purchase and suffered with mental agony. The proposal made by opposite party No.2 that they are prepared to replace the Refrigerator as per the depreciation policy of the company is not acceptable. The contention of the counsel for the complainant appears to be reasonable as the Refrigerator purchased by the complainant, started giving troubles within 3 months after its purchase one kind or other problem from time to time and those problems are not yet solved completely. There is no doubt 3 years elapsed from the time of its purchase. Opposite party No.2 is a reputed company in the field of Refrigerators. It started giving trouble within 3 months from the time of its purchase by which time comprehensive policy was in force. The troubles in the Refrigerator are continuing in one form or other from the time of its purchase till now. Hence the offer extended by opposite party No.2 under Ex.A9, that they are prepared to replace the Refrigerator it the complainant prepared to pay as per the depreciation policy of the company is not proper and correct.
The material placed on record clearly establishes there is manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator which was sold to the complainant by opposite party No.1 under Ex.A1 and it started giving troubles since 3 months from the date of its purchase under Ex.A1 and the complainant used to bring the defects with which he suffered from time to time to the notice of the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in their failure to rectify the defects of the Refrigerator which was sold to complainant by opposite party No.1. Hence we hold this point in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
8. POINT No.ii:- While Answering point No1, we have made it clear the Refrigerator which was sold to the complainant by opposite party No.1 under Ex.A1 is suffered with manufacturing defect and opposite parties failed to attend and rectify the defects which were brought to their notice. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. The offer made by opposite party No.2 that they are prepared to replace the piece, if the complainant is ready to pay 50% of the costs of the new one + Rs.1,000/- is also not justifiable for the simple reason, the complainant is not expected to be punished for no fault of him. Hence we hold this point also in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties and an award is passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties. opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the Refrigerator Rs.12,315/- to the complainant as suffered a lot of mental agony and hardship due to malfunction of the Refrigerator which he purchased from opposite party No.1 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of notice i.e., Ex.A8 dated 28.02.2014 till the date of payment or realization whichever is earlier, to repay a sum of Rs.2,200/- which the complainant paid under Ex.A5 dated 13.04.2013 towards freezer box and filter replacement and gas filling, and a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony with which complainant suffered due to purchase of defective piece and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this CC.
9. In the result the complaint filed by the complainant is here by partly allowed and we direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the costs of the Refrigerator Rs.12,315/- with interest at 9% per annum from date of notice i.e., Ex.A8 dated 28.02.2014 till the date of payment or realization whichever is earlier, to repay a sum of Rs.2,200/- which the complainant paid under Ex.A5 dated 13.04.2013 towards freezer box and filter replacement and gas filling, and a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony with which complainant suffered due to purchase of defective piece and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this CC.
We direct opposite parties to pay the amounts as directed above to the complainant within one month from today failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order and realize the same by proceeding against opposite parties according to law .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10th day of April, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Purchase Bill No.862 for a sum of Rs.12,315/- dated 12.11.2010
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Warranty Card.
Ex.A3 Service request letter.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Letter from complainant to Customer Service Department, Whirlpool of India Limited, Harayana dated 12.04.2013.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Challan No.80 for a sum of Rs.2,200/- dated 13.04.2013.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Online Complaint dated 16.04.2013.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Online Complaint dated 17.04.2013
Ex.A8 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 28.02.2014 along with postal receipts.
Ex.A9 Reply letter of opposite party No.2 dated 25.04.2014.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
