By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:
Brief of the complaint:- The complainant's father has purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator for an amount of Rs.10,150/- on 04.09.2005. During January 2007 the Fridge was not working he contacted the opposite party No.1. As per his advice the Fridge taken to the service center of the opposite party at Mananthavady in an hired vehicle and the Fridge got repaired from the service center but they have obtained Rs.850/- as service charge and he spent an amount of Rs.400/- for transportation. Again the Fridge was not working and he has taken the Fridge in to the service center on 27.02.2008. The refrigerator was repaired by opposite party but the complainant has spent Rs.1,250/- for this he has given Rs.850/- towards repair charge and he spent Rs.400/- towards transportation from Kalpetta to Mananthavady. The complainant strongly believes that Fridge was not working due to the manufacturing defect of the Fridge. Therefore he contacted the opposite party No.1 and complained about it. At that time the opposite party No.1 told that it is usually happened in one Fridge among 1000 Fridges. Thereafter small cracks appeared in the back side of the Fridge and later it is evidenced that fact also informed to the opposite parties at that time he told that he has nothing to do with the defects. Therefore after one technician came from the company and inspected the Fridge and he told that he cannot repair the Fridge, the matter should be reported to the company. So the complainant took the photographs of the Fridge and sent a notice to the opposite party No.2 with photographs of the Fridge. Even though the notice is received by the opposite party No.2 he has neither sent any reply nor repaired the Fridge. Hence the complainant filed this complaint. Even though the Fridge is bought by his father Antony, now he is bedridden and he is lost his eye sight also, hence he authorized his son to file the complaint.
2. Notices were served on the opposite parties, time is granted to file their version. But they have not filed their version. Hence the opposite parties are set exparte and proceeded with the case.
3. On considering the complaint the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1:- To prove the complainant's case Sri. P.A Binoy, S/o Antony filed his proof affidavit. Exts.A1 to A7 are marked to prove his case. Ext.A1 is the authorization of P.M. Antony which authorizes his son P.A. Binoy to conduct the case. Ext.A2 is the cash bill for Rs.11,350/- issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant's father. Ext.A3 is the copy of warranty issued by the opposite party No.1 to Sri. P.M. Antony. Which shows that the product has 7 years protection plan. Ext.A4 is the bill issued by opposite party No.3 to Antony on 11.01.2007. Which shows that opposite party No.3 has collected an amount of Rs.850/- towards the service charge and replacement cost of thermostat OLP. Ext.A5 is the cash bill issued by opposite party No.3 to the complainant which shows that the opposite party No.3 has collected an amount of Rs.850/- towards gas charging Drier, service charge from the father of the complainant. Ext.A6 is the notice sent to the opposite party No.2 by the complainant's father stating all defects happened to the Fridge of the complainant's father. Ext.A7 is the copy of the acknowledgment card, which shows that the opposite party No.2 has received the notice sent by the complainant's father.
5. On perusing Ext.A2 the Fridge has 7 year protection plan offered by the opposite parties. Ext.A2 shows that Fridge is purchased on 04.09.2005. Exts.A4 and A5 shows that the Fridge is repaired on 11.01.2007 and 27.02.2008 respectively. Further it shows that an amount of Rs.850/- each is collected from the complainant's father for repairing the Fridge during warranty period. Ext.A6 shows that the complainant's father sent a letter to the opposite party No.2 mentioning all the defects appeared in the Fridge happened after purchasing the Fridge. Ext.A7 shows that the above notice is received by opposite party No.2. The recurrent failure and defects of the new Fridge and accepting charge for the repair in warranty period and non replying to the due notice sent by the complainant's father to the opposite party are deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- On perusing Ext.A2 it is seen that the complainant has given Rs.10,150/- as cost of the Fridge. On perusing Exts.A4 and A5 it is seen that opposite party No.3 is collected Rs.850/- each from the complainant for the repair of the Fridge during the warranty period. On perusing the affidavit and complaint it is seen that the complainant has spent Rs.800/- (400 each) for transporting Fridge from Kalpetta to Mananthavady. The complainant is entitled to get the cost of the Fridge that is Rs.10,150/- and Rs.2,500/- that is the repair charge and transportation charge given by the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as compensation. At the time of receiving the above amount from opposite parties the complainant is directed to give back his Fridge to opposite parties. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,150/- (Rupees Ten Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Only) towards cost of the Fridge and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards repair and transportation charge spent by the complainant with 12% interest from the date of filing of this complaint that is from 23.04.2012 till the payment is made. The opposite parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as compensation and cost of this litigation. This is to be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 22nd June 2012.
Date of Filing:23.04.2012.
