O R D E R
(By Mr. D.Shanker Rao, Member)
1. The brief facts set-out in the complaint are that the complainant has purchased Videocon freeze S180 model in Sl No.200516 of Videocon company of opposite party No.2 from the shop of opposite party No.1 at Nizamabad on 20-2-2006 for Rs.6,800/-. The opposite party No.2 company has undertakes warranty for the period of six years on compressor for the said purchased freeze. Its giving problems in every day. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 shop in different dates for rectifying the problems. The company technicians have also repaired the freeze, but the problems was not rectified. The freeze was handed over by the opposite party No.1 without rectifying the problem. Hence complainant has got issued notice through District Consumers Association Federation to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant has waited near about two months time, but he has left no other option except file the case. The complainant has sought the relief, to replace the freeze with new one with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the complaint.
2. The opposite party No.1 has refused to receive the notice from this Forum and made set-exparte on 5-7-2012 and remained ex-parte throughout proceedings. The notice against opposite party No.2 was served from this Forum and made set-exparte on 14-11-2011 due to absent and remained exparte throughout proceedings.
3. During enquiry, the wife of the complainant Smt Sukku Latha was permitted to give evidence on behalf of her husband Sukku Mutanna who is at Dubai as per the orders passed in IA No.41/2013 dated 16-4-2013. The chief affidavit of Smt Sukku Latha as PW1 filed on behalf of her husband Sukku Mutanna and she is examined further in chief and marked Ex.A1 to A4 documents and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. Both the opposite parties remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings.
4. Heard arguments.
5. The points for consideration are :
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties ?
2) To what relief?
6. POINTS 1 & 2: It is the case of the complainant that he purchased Videocon company freeze model S180 of opposite party No.2 from the shop of opposite party No.1 at Nizamabad on 20-2-2006 in Ex.A1 and there is warranty on compressor for a period of six years in Ex.A4 from the Videocon company of opposite party No.2. The said freeze giving troubles but not rectified even after the company technicians have repaired. There is no response from the opposite parties even after receipt of legal notices from the complainant in Ex.A2 which were served on 4-6-2011 as per Ex.A3 postal acknowledgements. Hence constitute the cause of action on 4-6-2011 for filing complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 for replace the freeze with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony besides costs. The complaint is not rebutted by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and they were remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings.
In order to prove the case, the wife of the complainant Smt Sukku Latha has filed her affidavit evidence as PW1 on permission as per the orders passed in IA No.41 of 2013 dated 16-4-2013, on behalf of complainant and marked Ex.A1 to A4 documents.
The Ex.A1 is delivery challana cum invoice dated 20-2-2006 issued by opposite party No.1 which bears the signature of the complainant and evidencing that, the complainant has purchased the Videocon company freeze model S180 from the shop of opposite party No.1 at Nizamabad. It is mentioned in Ex.A1 that the opposite party No.1 is authorized dealer for Videocon company. It is also mentioned in Ex.A1 that the guarantee / warranty given by concerned companies only. The Ex.A2 is the legal notice without date issued to the opposite parties 1 and 2 by the complainant through his counsel Sri Bharath Nagesh advocate Nizamabad. In Ex.A3, there are two postal acknowledgements which are addressed to opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively with postal delivery seals and evidencing that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have received registered letters on 4-6-2011 from the counsel for the complainant. The owner’s manual of freeze model S180 of Videocon company in Ex.A4 is clearly showing the compressor of freeze having six years warranty period from the company. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the final cause of action arose on 4-6-2011 when the Ex.A2 legal notices were served as per Ex.A3 acknowledgements within the warranty period in Ex.A4 though the complainant has purchased the freeze on 20-2-2006 in Ex.A1 and the complaint is filed on 21-9-2011 which is within warranty period and within limitation.
As far as concerned with trouble of freeze there is no specific plea mentioned in the complaint except the plea of giving troubles. At the time of arguments, the counsel for the complainant Vehemently argued that the freeze is troubled with the defect of compressor which is having warranty for the period of six years from the Videocon company of opposite party No.2. Further argued that the compressor is the main organ for functioning the freeze and the defect of the compressor is nothing but a defect of entire freeze defect and the said freeze has to be replaced with new one with compensation and costs.
It is a fact that the entire case is depending upon the issue of six years warranty period for compressor of freeze. Admittedly the Videocon company of opposite party No.2 undertakes the six years warranty period for the compressor of freeze in Ex.A4. It is also fact that the defect in compressor of freeze was not repaired / rectified by the opposite parties 1 and 2 even after receipt and acknowledgement of legal notice in Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. Therefore it can be presumed undoubtedly that there is a defect in the compressor and the freeze became defunct. As per Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus and word power guide of Indian Edition in page No.1459, the “Warranty” means a written guarantee promissing to repair or replace an article if necessary within specified period.
The opposite party No.1 is the shop and deals with sale of goods as a dealer on behalf of Videocon company of opposite party No.2. The service of guarantee / warranty is exclusively undertaken in Ex.A4 only by the opposite party No.2. In addition to this, it is clearly mentioned in Ex.A1 where the complainant has signed that the guarantee / warranty given by concerned company only.
Viewed in any angle, the defect compressor is liable to be replaced with new one as per six years warranty in Ex.A4 which undertaken only by opposite party No.2 company. Therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2 company. The complainant has not placed any record before us for deciding compensation towards mental agony hence the claim of complainant under mental agony is disproved.
Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party No.2 company is only liable to replace only the compressor of freeze model S 180 in Sl No.200516 under Ex.A1 & A4 with new one in the circumstances of the case.
IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed partly as under:
- The opposite party No.2 company is directed to replace only the compressor of freeze model S180 in Sl No.200516 under Ex.A1 & A4 with new one to the complainant.
- The opposite party No.2 company also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the complaint.
- The complaint is DISMISSED against opposite party No.1 without costs in the circumstances of the case.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Member in Open Forum on this the 7th day of May 2013.
