By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> The complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the complaint is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a purchaser of BPL refrigerator at the cost of Rs. 18,000/- on<br /> (Contd........2)<br /> -2-<br /> 02.1.2001. The 1st Opposite party is the retail seller and the 2nd Opposite party is the manufacturer of the refrigerator. The period of warranty offered was for 5 years from the date of purchase. The refrigerator immediately after purchase, became non operative because of the complaints of the compressor and other system. The Complainant informed the 1st Opposite party the defects. As per the instruction of the 1st Opposite party the refrigerator was repaired in several occasions from the Opposite party No.3 to 6 and for which Rs. 2,030/- was given towards the service charge. The Complaint continued even after the repair. The instrument was taken by the Complainant to different service centre at Thrissur and Ernakulam apart from other service centre in Kalpetta. On 24.1.2005 the refrigerator was entrusted to 6th Opposite party for repair. In several occasions the Complainant approached the Opposite party No.1 and 6 but the instrument was not rectified from defects and not given back to the Complainant even after the repeated demands. On 11.9.2005 the Complainant purchased an another refrigerator which cast Rs.17,850/-. The refrigerator sold by the 1st Opposite party manufactured by the 2nd Opposite party is having mechanical defect. The registered notice was sent to the opposite parties on 28.2.2006 calling upon them to give back the refrigerator after repair. The demands of the Complainant to give back this repaired refrigerator was not responded positively and more over . No reply was sent to the lawyer notice. The act of the Opposite party is deficiency of service. Opposite parties are legally liable to compensate the Complainant. There may be <br /> an order directing the Opposite party to give the Complainant the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and the cost of the Complaint. <br /> <br /> The 1st Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The Opposite parties No. 2 - 6 are declared exparte. It is averred and admitted on the version of the 1st Opposite party that the Complainant purchased the refrigerator manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party and sold by them. The complaint of the compressor and other systems of the refrigerator immediately after<br /> (Contd....3)<br /> -3-<br /> the sale is denied by 1st Opposite party. The instrument was repaired and made it free from the defects as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The defective parts of the instrument was replaced. The Complainant entrusted the fridge to the 6th Opposite party on 24.1.2003 through the 1st Opposite party is a false allegation. The service rendered by the service centre is not under the consult and control of the retail dealer. Apart from that the Complainant had filed a petition Lok Adalat to settle the dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite party. The Complainant had agreed to receive the rectified refrigerator from the 6th Opposite Party and the petition in Lok Adalat was disposed accordingly. The Complainant is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. <br /> <br /> The points in consideration are <br /> 1. Whether the acts of the Opposite party amounts to deficiency in service ?<br /> 2. Relief and costs<br /> <br /> Point No.1:<br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. The purchase of the refrigerator is undisputed. Ext. A1 is the bill given to the Complainant by the 1st Opposite party. The refrigerator <br /> defective during the warranty period and it is also not objected by the 1st Opposite party. Ext. A2 is the bill given by the 5th Opposite party towards the cash received from the Complainant for the repair charges. The amount spent towards repair charges of the refrigerator is the Ext. A3 series. The cash receipt given by Opposite party No.5 is the Ext. A4. The Complainant purchased an another fridge and it is evident from Ext. A6. The Complainant informed the Opposite parties to call upon them to rectify the defects caused to the refrigerator which was not attended positively. The 2nd Opposite party is the manufacturer of the refrigerator. No oral evidence or any documents with respect to the allegation is brought out by the 1st Opposite<br /> (Contd.......4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> party in support of their contention. More over the Opposite party 2 - 6 are exparte. The Opposite party No.1 has not tendered oral evidence apart from filing version. It is averred in the version that the repair of the refrigerator and the replacement of any parts if required is to be done by the manufacturer and the authorized service centres of the manufacturer. The refrigerator was entrusted to the 6th Opposite party for repair by the 1st Opposite party. The service offered by the 1st Opposite party is prompt and correct. In order to show this no oral evidence or any documents with respect to that was bring forth by the 1st Opposite party. It is seen that the refrigerator which was given in custody of 6th Opposite party is not given back after repair by the 6th Opposite party. Who is the authorised person to render service if any defects caused in manufacture. The Opposite party No. 3, 4, and 5 are the authorised persons to conduct the repair of the concerned company product. The refrigerator is inherent with defects and for the rectifications of the Complainant had taken it to the Opposite party No.3, 4 and 5 and finally deposited with the 6th Opposite party. The Opposite parties No.3 - 5 had only conducted the repairs. They have received charges for the repairs also. In case of manufacture defect of product the 2nd Opposite party is liable to rectify the defects. The 6th Opposite party is the authorised service agent who has not paid back the refrigerator after repair which is to be free from defects during the warranty period. The 1st Opposite party is only a dealer who has acted his role of connecting the consumer with the authorised service centre. From the above inferences, it is to be held that the 2nd, 5th and 6th Opposite parties acts involves the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:<br /> Ext. A1 shows the price of the refrigerator with 4% sale tax is Rs. 18,000/-. Ext. A2 is the cash receipt given by the 5th Opposite party dated 26.7.2006 that is Rs. 786/-. Ext. A3 series (2 in numbers ) dated 30.5.2003 is the cash receipt of the payment of Rs. 583/- and Rs. 592/-<br /> (Contd......5)<br /> - 5 <br /> subsequently. Towards the repair charges, the Complainant had given Rs. 2,030/-. The repairs were done. The Complainant purchased an another refrigerator the documents Ext. A6 stands in support of that. The price of the refrigerator is Rs. 18,000/-. The repair charges received by the 5th Opposite party is Rs. 2,030/-. The Complainant has to spent Rs. 18,000/- along with the repair charges during the warranty period. The 5th Opposite party gave the Complainant receipts for Rs. 2,030/-. The repair could not make in effect on the defect of the refrigerator. The Complainant is to be given the value of the refrigerator and the repair charges received by the 5th Opposite party is to be refunded.<br /> <br /> In the result, the 2nd and 6th Opposite parties are directed to give the Complainant Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand only) either jointly or severally along with the interest at the rate of 12% from the time of filing the complaint till the payment. The 5th Opposite party is also directed to refund the Rs. 2,030/- (Rupees Two thousand and Thirty only) along with cost of Rs. 500/- ( Rupees Five hundred only) to the Complainant. The 2nd and 6th Opposite parties<br /> are also directed to give Rs. 4,000/- ( (Rupees Four thousand only) towards the compensation and Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees One thousand only ) towards the cost. In case of any failure on the parts of the Opposite parties the Complainant can execute this order as per the provisions of law.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 15th day of February 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Contd......6)<br /> <br /> 6 -<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Jayan. Complainant.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Bill. dt:02.01.2001.<br /> <br /> A2. Field Cash Receipt. dt:26.07.2002.<br /> <br /> A3 Series<br /> (2 in numbers) Field Cash Receipt.<br /> <br /> A4. Field Cash Receipt. dt:01.11.2003.<br /> <br /> A5. Copy of letter issued by <br /> Opposite Party No.6. dt:24.01.2005.<br /> <br /> A6. Cash / Credit Bill. dt:11.09.2005.<br /> <br /> A7 series. Copy of the Lawyer notice. dt:24.02.2006<br /> <br /> A8 series <br /> (3 in numbers) Acknowledgement.<br /> <br /> A9 series. Returned Notice.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> <br /> M/