BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 16th day of June 2012 Filed on : 20-03-2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.173/2012
Between
Jose Antony T.R., : Complainant
Thaichira House, Chandi road, (By Adv. Rajesh K.G., M/s. K
Vaduthala P.O., Kochi-682 023. Ramkumar Associates,
Sumthripthi,Kalathiparambil Lane,
Valanjambalam, Kochi-682 016)
And
1. The Manager, : Opposite parties
Samsung Branch Office, (Parties-in-person)
Subash Chandra Bose Road,
Kadavanthra, Kochi-682 020.
2. The Manager, AC Tech,
Samsung Service,
Irumpanam, Kochi-682 309.
3. V-one Traders Home
Appliances, Near Chambakara
Market, Vyttila, Kochi-682 032.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a new Samsung fridge from the 3rd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party. After a few days from the date of purchase the refrigerator went out of order. The complainant lodged a complaint with the 1at and 3rd opposite party. The technician of the 2nd opposite party attended to the defect but he could not rectify the same. At that juncture the complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the defective refrigerator or to refund the price of the same. There was no response on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party which fell on deaf ears. So the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties either to get the refrigerator replaced with a new one or to get refund of the price of the same together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. At the threshold the representative of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties filed a memorandum stating that they are ready to replace the unit with an equivalent one of the same value or to provide a high end model where the complainant would have to pay the additional value.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
4.Since the opposite parties agreed to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one at the outset we think that the positive gesture on the part of the opposite parties in compliance with the substantial portion of the claim of the complainant which would meet the ends of justice which is also appreciable not to mention it goes to abate the agony of the complainant.
5. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the refrigerator in question with a new one of the same price with warranty as agreed. The complainant shall bear excess price if any if he chooses to purchase any higher end model. The complainant shall return the defective refrigerator to the opposite parties simultaneously which is to be taken away by the opposite parties at their own cost.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the16th day of June 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits:
A1 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 13/05/2011
A2 : Copy of customer details cum warranty card
A3 : Copy of lawyer notice dt. 02-02-2012
A4 : Copy of notice dt. 02-02-2012
A5 : copy of A.D. card.
Opposite party’s exhibits: : Nil
