Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/73/2016

Smt. Mohini Sathyanarayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory,Sri Guru Vaibhav Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.C.M.Veeranna

12 May 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:01/08/2016

DISPOSED      ON:12/05/2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 73/2016

 

DATED: 12^th MAY 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

 

 

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. Mohini Sathyanarayana, Household Work, Shantinagar, Behind Gangabhavani Lodge, Near Tower, Challakere, Chitradurga Taluk.   (Rep by Sri.C.M. Veeranna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Authorized Signatory, Sri Guru Vaibhava Enterprises, Godrej Showroom, Raghavendra Towers, Veerasavarkar Road, OPP: Siddus in Lodge, Chitradurga-577501.   2. The Authorized Signatory, Godrej and Boyce Mf. Company Ltd., Projashnagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 079.   (Rep by Sri.C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate, for OP No.2 and OP No.1 ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to get it repair the refrigerator failing which replace the same and the OPs are jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the permanent resident of Challakere.  OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of OP No.2 who is the manufacturer of home appliances under the name and style of Godrej and Boyce manufacturing company limited.  OP No.2 has got very good reputation in manufacturing of home appliances including refrigerators, almirash, steel furnitures and security appliances and other daily consumables.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has intended to purchase Godrej company refrigerator on 25.04.2013 from OP No.1.  The OP No.1 has insisted the complainant to purchase the Godrej Company refrigerators as it is good one, worthwhile, durable and it services the purpose of house.  By believing the version of OP No.1, the complainant has purchased the Godrej RT Eon 260 4.2 Lush silver refrigerator with stand vide Invoice No.265 dated 25.04.2013 by paying entire amount of Rs.21,000/- and delivered the same.  At the time of taking delivery the OP No.1 has assured the Godrej refrigerator will give good service and he has also one year warranty.  After lapse of 6 months, the refrigerator not cooling properly, there is no freshness of vegetables, milk is spoiled frequently and other products are also boosted.  Now it functions like box.  In this aspect, complainant has approached No.1 and requested him to get it repair.  The OP No.1 has sent service boy for 2 to 4 times.  But, the same problem occurring in the refrigerator.  Finally, on 27.08.2015 the service person has come and told that, fan has to be changed as he has fitted the fan also.  After the repair, the refrigerator runs 2-3 days and again same problem will be repeats.  In this regard the complainant has written a letter on 30.08.2015 by complaining about the problems.  But, the OP No.1 has intentionally postponed the matter on one or the other pretext and dragged the matter.  It clearly made out that there is a clear deficiency of service and dereliction of duties rendered and unfair trade practice done by the OP No.1.  Now the refrigerator is kept idle.  Due to this, the complainant has incurred heavy loss and has suffered mental agony which cannot be compensated in any terms.  The OP No.1 has given warranty for the refrigerator for 12 months.  Even though the complainant refrigerator has not expired on the date of first repair comes.  Finally, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and requested to deliver the new refrigerator or refund the money.  On 04.04.2016 the OP No.1 has given evasive replies and not repaired or replace with new one.  The OP No.2 Company has failed to discharge its duty. The cause action for the complaint arose on 03.06.2016 when the OPs have not repaired the refrigerator nor replaced with new one even though the legal notice has been issued which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow her complaint with cost. 

3.      On service of notice, OP No.1 remained absent and they placed ex-parte.  OP No.2 appeared through Sri. C.J. Lakshminarsimha, Advocate and filed version denying the allegations made in para-2 to 13 of the complaint.  It is further stated that, the complainant booked a complaint on 27.12.2013 under call No.983737 with an issue that, the vegetables and fruits were getting spoiled and the OP No.2 appointing a technical Engineer who carried out the work on 07.01.2014, the technical engineer replaced product called as thermostat with a brand new one and fixed the product to its complete functioning state.  The said complaint was closed.  The another complaint on 28.10.2014 under call No.800661, again OP No.2 appointed a technical engineer who visited the house of the complainant but, the complainant herself did not allow the technical engineer to enter the house and rectify the defect.  The OP No.2 made hectic efforts who was not allowed to inspect the product and the complainant has refused the services of OP No.2.  The problem arise on account of improper handling of the refrigerator by the complainant.  Now the OP No.2 was ready and willing to repair the refrigerator and as such the complainant herself refused the services of the OP.  It is further submitted that, the machine was working properly after the installation and there was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant in any manner for a period of almost one year.  Hence, the question of replacement does not arise.  The complainant has not produced any documents or materials to show that the refrigerator had manufacturing defects.  The complainant is not entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- as prayed by him and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked. On behalf of OP No.2, one Sri. Sachithananda Murthy. K, the Branch Service Head has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 &      B-2 documents have been got marked.  

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is the case of the complainant that, on 25.04.2013 the complainant has purchased the Godrej RT Eon 260 4.2 Lush silver refrigerator with stand from OP No.1 under Invoice No.265 by paying a sum of Rs.21,000/-.  The OP No.1 has assured that the refrigerator will give good service with one year warranty.  After lapse of 6 months, the refrigerator not cooling properly, there is no freshness of vegetables, milk is spoiled frequently and other products are also boosted, it functions like box.  In this aspect, complainant has approached No.1 and requested him to get it repair.  The OP No.1 has sent service boy for 2 to 4 times to repair the same, again the same problem occurring in the refrigerator.  On 27.08.2015 the service person has come and told that, fan has to be changed.  After the repair, the refrigerator runs 2-3 days and again same problem repeats.  The complainant has written a letter on 30.08.2015 by complaining about the problems.  But, the OP No.1 has intentionally postponed the matter on one or the other pretext and dragged the matter.  It clearly made out that there is a clear deficiency of service and dereliction of duties rendered and unfair trade practice done by the OP No.1.  Now the refrigerator is kept idle.  Due to this, the complainant has incurred heavy loss and suffered mental agony.  The OP No.1 has given warranty for the refrigerator for 12 months.  Even though the refrigerator has not expired on the date of first repair comes.  Finally, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and requested to deliver the new refrigerator or refund the money.  On 04.04.2016 the OP No.1 has given evasive replies and not repaired or replace with new one.  The OP No.2 Company has failed to discharge its duty. The cause action for the complaint arose on 03.06.2016 when the OPs have not repaired the refrigerator nor replaced with new one even though the legal notice has been issued which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow her complaint with cost. 

9.      In support of her contention, the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like Tax Invoice dated 25.04.2013 marked as Ex.A-1, which shows the complainant has purchased the refrigerator from OP No.1, letter dated 30.08.2015 written by the complainant to OP No.1 requesting to solve the problem in the refrigerator marked as Ex.A-2, office copy of the legal notice dated 03.06.2016 issued by the advocate for complainant to the OPs marked as Ex.A-3, postal receipt and served acknowledgement marked as Ex.A-4.

10.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OP No.2 that, the complainant has booked a complaint on 27.12.2013 under call No.983737 with an issue that, the vegetables and fruits were getting spoiled and the OP No.2 appointing a technical Engineer.  On 07.01.2014, the technical engineer replaced the product called as thermostat with a brand new one and fixed the product to its complete functioning state and the complaint was closed.  As per the complaint made by the complainant on 28.10.2014 under call No.800661, OP No.2 appointed a technical engineer who visited the house of the complainant but, the complainant herself did not allow the technical engineer to enter the house and rectify the defect even though the hectic efforts made by the OP No.2 and the complainant has refused the services of OP No.2.  The problem arise on account of improper handling of the refrigerator by the complainant.  Now the OP No.2 was ready and willing to repair the refrigerator and as such the complainant herself refused the services of the OPs.   It is further argued by the OP No.2 that, the machine was working properly after the installation and there was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant in any manner for a period of almost one year.  Hence, the question of replacement does not arise.  The complainant has not produced any documents or materials to show that the refrigerator had manufacturing defects. 

 11.   In support of its contention, the OP No.2 has filed affidavit evidence of its Branch Service Head examined as DW-1 and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like copy of visit report of the Service Engineer marked as Ex.B-1, which shows that, the refrigerator is working properly, cooling is alright, vegetables spoiling within 3-4 days and letter of the Service Manager dated 27.01.2017 marked as Ex.B-2.  As per the technical observation, there is no problem with the temperature of the refrigerator.

 12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the OP No.2 has stated in the version and affidavit if any problem occurs in the refrigerator, the OP OP No.2 is always ready to solve the problem but, OP No.1 placed ex-parte.  It is the duty of the OP No.1 to solve the problem of the refrigerator.  But the OP No.1 intentionally avoided to take notice and appeared before this Forum, it clearly shows that, there is a deficiency of service and negligence on the part of OP No.1.  But, OP No.2 is the manufacturer, he is also responsible to solve the problem, the OP No.2 is always ready to repair the refrigerator.  But, it is the duty of the OP No.1 to repair the refrigerator.   As per the documents, version and affidavit of the OP No.2, there is no negligence or deficiency of service found on the part of the OP No.2, therefore, the complaint filed as against OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the OP No.1 has committed a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

            The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

            It is ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to repair the refrigerator within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 

            The complainant is hereby directed to handover the refrigerator to the OP No.1 within 8 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is not entitled for any relief.   No order as to costs. 

            The complaint filed as against OP No.2 is hereby dismissed.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 12/05/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. Sachithananda Murthy, Branch Service Head of OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Tax Invoice dated 25.04.2013
02	Ex-A-2:-	Letter dated 30.08.2015 written by the complainant to OP No.1
03	Ex-A-3:-	Office copy of the legal notice dated 03.06.2016 issued by the advocate for complainant to the OPs
04	Ex-A-4:-	Postal receipt and served acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP No.2:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Copy of visit report of the Service Engineer
02	Ex-B-2:-	Letter of the Service Manager dated 27.01.2017

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**