CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
CC No.332/10
Tuesday the 22nd day of March, 2011
Petitioner : P.M. Chacko,
Puthuparambil,
Mammoodu PO,
Changanchery 686 553.
Vs.
Opposite party : 1) Manager,
Cool-Trend Refrigeration
(Tek Care India Pvt. Ltd)
Central Tower,
Cross Jn, Thiruvalla.
2) Mathew (Mechanic)
Cool-Trend Refrigeration
do-do-do-
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant has been using the washing machine purchased from Konattu Agencies, Karukachal. The said Viedocon washing machine stopped functioning and said matter was informed to the Konattu Agencies. Then the Konattu Agencies collected the complainant’s address and phone number and promised to inform the matter to the service agent. As his Samsung Refrigerator was not purchased from Konattu Agencies, there was no need to inform the said agency about the complaints of the said Fridge. 3 days after informing Konattu Agencies, an agent from Cool Trend Refrigeration, Thiruvalla came to his house. At that time the complainant was not present in his house, so his wife informed the said agent that the washing machine is having complaint and that is to be rectified. But the agent from the 1st opposite party opened the fridge and opined that the fridge is having over cooling and they took the thermostat from the fridge. The complainant’s wife again said to him that the fridge is not having any complaint but the washing machine is remaining defective. Without listening to his wife they took the thermostat for repairing. Even after 2 weeks, the opposite parties had not done anything with the fridge so it remained non functioning for the said 2 weeks. At last the complainant telephoned the opposite parties and the demanded to refit the thermostat in the fridge and also demanded to bring the concerned bill along with the thermostat. On 24/7/10 the opposite party fitted the thermostat in the complaint’s fridge. After the said repairing works the things kept in the fridge started decaying. So it was again informed to the opposite parties. But they have not done any thing to rectify the mal functioning occured due to their unnecessary repairing. The complainant alleged that without repairing his defective washing machine the opposite parties opened and repaired the fridge which was properly functioning. After the said work they received Rs.1100/- as the repairing charge. The complainant further alleged that the acts of the opposite parties caused financial loss, loss of use of fridge, monetary loss and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the said losses. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of Rs.1100/- and compensation Rs.15,000/-.
Notice was served to both opposite parties. But the opposite parties failed to enter appearance and were set expartee.
Points for consideration:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and Exts. A1 to A5.
Point No.1
The complainant deposed that he purchased Viedocon Washing machine from Konattu Agencies, Karukachal and it became none functioning. Evidencing the said purchase the complainant produced copy of retail invoice dtd 21/7/07. The complainant further deposed that the mal functioning was reported to the Konattu Agencies Karukachal and as per their direction an agent from 1st opposite party came to his house, opened the properly functioning fridge instead of the non functioning washing machine and took the thermostat of the fridge. The complainant next deposed that the opposite parties had not listened to the words of his wife who was present at home during the time of inspection and had done the unnecessary repairing work. Evidencing the arrival of the opposite party for repairing, a copy of visiting card is produced and it is marked as Ext.A2. The petitioner issued a letter to the opposite parties for getting back the repairing charges of unnecessary work done by them. The copy of the said letter and the postal receipts are produced and they are marked as Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 respectively. Proving the complainant’s allegations that the opposite parties received Rs. 1100/-, he produced copy of the said payment and it is marked as Ext.A5. As the opposite party chose not to contest the allegations levelled against them remain unchallenged. From the facts and circumstances of the case we find the opposite parties deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed.
In the result complainant is ordered as follows.
The 1st opposite party will refund Rs.1100/-to the complainant along with Rs. 4000/- as compensation for the loss of use of fridge, mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant.
This order will be complied with within one month of the receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of March, 2011.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the complainant
Ext.A1-copy of retail invoice dtd 21/7/07
Ext.A2-copy of visiting card of the opposite parties
Ext.A3-copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dtd 31/8/10
Ext.A4-copy of postal receipts dtd 31/8/10
Ext.A5-copy of the cash receipt dtd 24/7/10 for Rs.1100/-.
Documents of the opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
