BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 24th day of September, 2009 CORAM: 1. Sri.Vijay Kumar, B.Com.L.L.B., President, 2. Sri.K.V. Kaladhar, B.Sc., B.L., Member 3. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member C.C. No.47/2009 Between: Meda Venkateswara Rao, s/o.Raghupathi, age: 37 years, occu: Business, r/o.11-10-709/3A, Burhanpuram, Khammam …Complainant And 1. Sri Venkata Sai Electronics, D.No.9-5-10/1, near Muncipal office, Kasba bazaar, Khammam, rep. By its prop. S.Bhasker 2. Videocon Industries Ltd., 14th KM stone, Auangabad-Paithan road, Chitegaon Aurangabad-431105. …Opposite parties. This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant; Notice of opposite parties No.1 and 2 served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member) 1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Videocon Refrigerator Model No. 220 WD DX from the opposite party No.1 on 23-4-2007 by paying an amount of Rs.9,400/- vide receipt No.13, after its’ purchase, worked properly for a period of 11 months and subsequently the compressor of the refrigerator started giving troubles, immediately the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, and handed over the refrigerator for rectification of defects, the opposite party No.1 promised to replace the same with new one and after lapse of 3 months, the opposite party No.1 returned the refrigerator, and after 4 months, the same problem has arisen. As such the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested to rectify the defects. But they did not respond to the requests of the complainant and vexed with the attitude of the opposite party No.1, the complainant logged a complaint with the opposite party No.2 through toll free No.18004194040. In the month of April, 2009, the mechanics of the opposite party No.1 inspected the refrigerator, found that the compressor is not working and stated that he will replace the compressor. But they failed to replace, the complainant again informed to the opposite party No.1 and demanded to replace the defective refrigerator. But the opposite party No.1 did not provide any service to the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service. As such he approached the forum and prayed to direct the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator with new one and to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages. 2. Along with the complaint, an affidavit is filed and also filed original cash receipt dt,23-4-2007 for Rs.10,400/- issued by opposite party No.1, Original copy of owners manual with warranty. 3. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties failed to appear before the forum and failed to file any counter. 4. In view of the averments of the complaint, now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief or not? Point: 5. As seen from the averments of the complaint, the complainant purchased Videocon refrigerator Model No. 220 WD DX from the opposite party No.1 on 23-4-2007 by paying an amount of Rs.9,400/- vide receipt No.13 and after 11 months, the compressor of the refrigerator has been giving troubles and the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for rectification of defects and handed over the refrigerator with them and the same was returned after rectification and after lapse of 4 months the same problem arisen in the refrigerator, then the complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 and logged a complaint. Accordingly, the mechanic of opposite party No.2 attended for repairs and observed that the compressor of the fridge was not working properly, as such he stated that they will replace the compressor with new one but failed to do so. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in rendering proper service to the complainant, and in support of his case, the complainant filed cash memo, dt.23-4-2007 for Rs.10,400/- and also filed owners manual. As per conditions of the owners’ manual, the opposite parties had given 6 years warranty from the date of purchase and as per page No.13 of owners’ manual, “the product (excluding compressor) is warranted against manufacturing defects of parts and components for a period of 12 months”. It is clear that there is a liability on the part of opposite parties against manufacturing defects within the period of warranty. As such we feel that it as a fit case to fasten the liability on the part of opposite parties. As such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. 6. In the result, the C.C. is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to replace the defective parts in Videocon refrigerator Model No.220 WD DX with new parts as per the conditions of the warranty and further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the litigation. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 24th day of September, 2009. President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant and opposite parties: -Nil- President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam |
