DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  15^th  day of April  2016

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                  Date of filing: 16/02/2015

               : Sri.V.P.Ananatha Narayanan, Member

                                                      (C.C.No.23/2015)         

N.G.Ananthakrishnan,

21/658, Anugraha, NPV Compound,

Noorani, Palakkad – 678 004                           -        Complainant

(By Adv.K.K.Menon) 

Vs

1.The Manager,

    Next Retail India Limited,

    Next Palakkad Surya, Surya City Building,

    G.B.Road, Palakkad – 678 001

2.The Manager

    M/s.Quick Customer Electronic Services

    Private Limited, 5^th Floor, Corporate parties,

   Centre, Opp.Hotel VITS, Andheri Kurla Road,

   Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059

3.The Manager

   M/s.P.E.Electronics Ltd.,

   205,206 and 207 Diamond Block,

   Lumbini Rocktail Compound, Adjacent

   To Eenadu Office, Somajiguda,

   Hyderabad – 500 082                                   -          Opposite parties

 (By Adv.Rajesh M Menon)

(As per order in  IA 340/2015 dated 28/10/15 name of the 2^nd opposite party is deleted from the party array.

O R D E R

By Shri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member.

Brief facts of complaint.

The complainant had purchased a ‘Electrolux’ refrigerator   for Rs.17,200/- on 09/12/2014, enchanted by the advertisement, keeping a lot of hope from 1^st opposite party, who is the authorized dealer of Electrolux and bought it to his home. The fridge worked in a different way contrary to complainant’s expectations. The machine could not hold cooled air inside. The cooled air was leaking through the gap between the freezer door and the body of the fridge. Due to this leakage the vegetables and other items kept in the fridge started perishing. The electricity bill also started amounting up due to the unnecessary effort of the fridge in cooling the items inside the fridge. When the defect was located it was brought to the notice of 1^st opposite party, who sent a mechanic, by name Mr.Smithesh to the complainant’s home. He found the defect and changed the gasket of the fridge. Even after the replacement of the gasket of the fridge, the problem of the fridge still continued. It was brought to the notice of the mechanic Smithesh who made the opinion that by changing the gasket there was no use, the fridge was defective. Its body was  having a bent over the place of leakage and the fridge should be replaced. Smithesh promised to take necessary steps to replace the fridge within the warranty period. Since then there was no action from the side of opposite parties to redress the complaint, the complainant reported the matter to 1^st opposite party who reported the complaint to the 3^rd opposite party, company. Then, Mr.Naveen from Ernakulam contacted the complainant and he promised to redress the grievance of the complainant by replacing the present fridge with another. On the last days of October 2014, the complainant contacted Naveen but he has not taken any action as promised by him. But he promised to send a service engineer and replace the fridge within a week. Again, Naveen has not kept his promise to replace the existing defective fridge with another  fridge. On  non fulfillment of promise by Naveen, the complainant sent a notice through his advocate on 4/11/2014 and copies of the notice were sent to all the three opposite parties.  Eventhough, 1^st and 3^rd opposite party received the notice they did not reply, but 2^nd opposite party left it unclaimed and returned to the sender. The fridge was purchased on 9/2/2014, covered by warranty and immediately after the purchase the defect was noticed and informed  opposite parties within the warranty period. The complainant pleaded that the company should be liable to replace the fridge. If not possible to replace the fridge, money  as per cash bill Rs.17,200/- plus transportation charges should be paid to complainant. According to the plea of the complainant there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties because they supplied a defective fridge and did not perform their basic duties.

In the meanwhile complainant got the faulty fridge inspected by a valuation engineer. He visited the house of the complainant   to inspect the present condition of the refrigerator. During inspection he identified the leakage of cool air and water through the freezer door in the closed condition of  the fridge which would reduces the efficiency of cooling inside the fridge and hence consumed more electricity. This defect of the fridge is due to the manufacturing defect in the structure of the body of the fridge. Minor repairing works like changing the gasket or adjusting the freezer door will not give a permanent solution to the problem of the fridge, according to the opinion of the technical experts. 

Hence complainant prayed to the Forum to enquire into the matter and direct the opposite parties to replace the fridge immediately with Rs.10,000/- towards additional electricity charges, Rs.5,000/- towards mental tension of the complainant, Rs.5,000/- towards the loss of food damaged due to the defect of the fridge and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the notices sent to opposite parties.

 The complaint was admitted and notices were sent to the opposite parties.  1^st and 3^rd opposite parties received the notice, 2^nd opposite party left it unclaimed. Hence as per the prayer of the complainant, 2^nd opposite party was deleted as per order in IA.340/2015 dated 28/10/2015.
 

In the counter statement filed on behalf of the 3^rd opposite party this opposite party denied all allegations and averments in the complaint. That 1^st opposite party sold a fridge to the complainant is admitted by 3^rd opposite party. The fridge is of Electrolux company is also admitted by 3^rd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party admitted that there was complaint regarding the fridge. The service personnel of 3^rd opposite party attended to the complaint. 3^rd opposite party contended that the gasket of the fridge was replaced was not correct and hence denied by 3^rd opposite party. The service personnel who attended to  the complaint opined that if the gasket was replaced the defect would be cured and ordered for the gasket to the company for replacement. In the meanwhile the complainant insisted on the replacement of fridge itself and the same was not allowed according to the policy of the company. According to 3^rd opposite party the complainant did not allow the service personnel to change the gasket of the fridge. 3^rd opposite party further contended that they were always willing to service the fridge of the complainant free of cost. The complaint was filed only to tarnish the image of the brand “Electrolux” which could not be allowed. The allegations like damage caused to food articles and the rise in electricity charges  should be put to proof. The opposite party denied  all such allegations in the complaint.

Complainant filed his chief affidavit. Ext.A1, A2, A3, A4 series, A5 series and C1 were marked from the side of the complainant.   But opposite parties did not filed documentary evidences.

The following issues are considered

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

2.If so, what is the relief?

Issue 1& 2

It is admitted that the complainant purchased a fridge from opposite party 1 for  Rs.17,200/- on 9/2/2014. The fridge is from “Electrolux” company. There was complaint regarding the fridge that it could not hold cooled air inside and the cooled air  was leaking through the gap between the freezer door and the body of the fridge .  Due to this leakage the vegetables and other items kept in the fridge started perishing and the electricity charges mounted.  Service  personnel of OP1 and OP3 attended to the complaint of the fridge; but the problem of the fridge still persisted.   The opposite parties were  willing to service the fridge free of cost; but were not prepared to replace the fridge because  it was against the policy of the 3^rd opposite party company.

Thus after examining the inspection report of the technical expert and documentary evidences submitted by the complainant, we come to the conclusion that the fridge is defective as a result of manufacturing defect. The plea that the complainant  was not able to use the fridge effectively and consequently suffered mental agony is allowed; but his plea to compensate for increased electricity charges and loss of items kept in the fridge as they became rotten because of defect of the fridge cannot be allowed for lack of proof to that effect from his side.   By selling the defective fridge opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice.  Hence we order that  1^st and 3^rd   opposite parties are jointly and severally  liable to replace the present defective fridge with a new properly working fridge of the same model.  If not possible to replace  the fridge,  the actual amount collected from the complainant as per the cash bill dated 9/2/2014 Rs.17,200/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand two hundred only)  should be returned to the complainant who should return the defective fridge to opposite parties.  Further a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) should be paid to the complainant by way of compensation for mental agony due to his inability to effectively make use of the newly purchased fridge.  In addition Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only)  should be paid to the complainant and towards cost incurred by the complainant for litigation.

Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.   

Pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th day of April  2016.    

                                                                                          Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                           Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                            Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                 Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked  from the side of complainant

Ext.A1 –   Copy of Invoice dated 09/2/2014

Ext.A2  -  Warranty Card

Ext.A3  –  Copy of lawyer notice sent to opposite parties dated 4/11/2014.

Ext.A4 series   –  Photos of defective fridge (2 nos)

Ext.A5 series  –   Copies of emails sent to the company and its reply

C1 – Commissioner’s  Report

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

Nil

Cost   

Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings