DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 29^th day of March 2011

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 26/04/2010

(C.C.No.54/2010)

Mariyambadhusha

W/o.Ahammed Badhusha

Kadeeja Manzil, N.H.Road,

Near Vanur, Alathur,

Palakkad – 678 541 - Complainant

(By Adv.A.K.Muhammed Rafi)

V/s

1. The Manager

Next Retail India Ltd.

Next Palakkad Ghanie,

Near Fort Maidan,

Stadium Bye Pass Road,

Palakkad

2. The Manager

Videocon Industries Ltd.

14^th Kms Stone, Paithan Road,

Village – Chitegaon, Tq-Paithan,

Dist – Aurangabad – 431 105.

(By Adv.M.V.Suryaprabha) - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.BHANUMATHI A.K. MEMBER

The Complaint in brief :

The complainant has purchased a water cooler from Next Retail India Ltd. as per invoice No.04787 on 6/4/10 for an amount of Rs.4,550/- On that day the cooler worked for two hours without any complaint. On the day after purchase the complainant switched on the cooler, a huge sound came out. The complainant was not able to asleep on that night. On the next day itself the complainant informed the same to the opposite parties. A technician from the opposite party came and checked the cooler. He informed that it is the regular sound coming from the water cooler. Technician left the place without doing any work to reduce the sound from the water cooler. So the complainant contacted the service engineer through website. A Technician from the company checked the cooler and repaired it. But even after the repairing the cooler will became noisy after 6 hours working. So the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as cost of the cooler and cost of the proceedings.

1^st opposite party set exparte. 2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.

2^nd opposite party is not aware of the purchase of the water cooler by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party. It is also not correct to say that the company's service engineer came and repaired the cooler. Company did not send any service engineer to repair complainant's water cooler. Opposite party again argues that to clarify the defects and to note the present conditions of the cooler no steps were taken by the complainant. If the defects are covered by the warranty, 2^nd opposite party is ready to repair it. 2^nd opposite party has no direct contact with the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. Thus opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits and Ext.A1 & A2 are marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence is adduced by the opposite party.

Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and costs entitled to the complainant ?

Issue 1 & 2

Complaint is regarding the defect in the water cooler which is purchased from the opposite party No.1 on 6/4/2010. On the day of purchase, for two hours the cooler functioned without problems. But on the next day, while the cooler is functioning a huge sound came out, which caused very uneasiness to the complainant. So the complainant informed the difficulty to the 1^st opposite party. As per the information given by the complainant a technician came and informed that it is the regular sound coming from the water cooler while it is functioning and left the place without doing any repair work. So the complainant contacted the company through website and informed the matter. A technician came and repaired the defective cooler. But after six hours of functioning again huge sound came from the cooler. So the complainant can't use the cooler properly.

2^nd opposite party argues that the complainant purchased the water cooler from 1^st opposite party. Whether the water cooler defective or what is the present condition of the cooler, all these facts are not known to the 2^nd opposite party. If the defects of the cooler is covered by warranty, 2^nd opposite party is ready to repair it. 2^nd opposite party is not aware of the repair work done by the technician. 1^st opposite party did not inform the 2^nd opposite party about this complaint and 2^nd opposite party did not appoint any technician to repair the defective cooler.

It is evident from Ext.A1 document the price of the water cooler is Rs.4,681/- and is purchased on 6/4/2010. But Ext.A2 is only an extract of a document. It doesn't contains the terms and conditions of warranty. The coming of the technician and repair work done by them are not supported by documents. It is the say of the complainant that she contacted the company through web site. To prove this no document is produced. The complainant did not take any steps to prove the defects of the water cooler.

In the absence of any solid evidence, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result the complaint dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of March 2011.

Sd/-

Seena H

President

Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of Invoice No.04787 dt.6/4/10 issued by Next Retail India Ltd.

Ext.A2 – Copy of Owner's Manual – Air Coolers (single page)

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil