BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 07/11/2013
Date of Order : 28/02/2014
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 772/2013
Between
K.R. Mohanan, Advocate, | :: | Complainant |
Karollil House, Ponnurunni, Cochin – 682 032. | | (By Adv. Sanal. K.M., 2nd Floor, K.P.K. Towers, Post Office Link Road, Cochin – 682 031.) |
And
1. The Managing Director, Videocon International Limited, | :: | Opposite Parties |
14th Kms. Stone, Aurangabad – Paitha Road, Chitegaon, Aurangabad – 431 105. 2. The Manager, Harisree Home Appliances, Near St. Martin Church, Palarivattom, Cochin – 682 025. 3. The Manager, Home Tech Engineers, 39/2977/A3, Near Catholic Syrian Bank, Anjumury, Ponnurunni, Vyttila. P.O., Kochi – 19. 4. The Manager, Ascend Service, No. 426/3, 1st Floor, Opp. Anjumury Bus Stop, Ponnurunni, Vyttila. P.O., Cochin – 19. | | (Op.pts. 1,2 & 4 absent) (Op.pty 3 was deleted from the party array as per order in I.A. No. 79/29014 dated 27-01-2014) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The undisputed facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-
On 14-02-2009, the complainant purchased a refrigerator from the 2nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 12,000/-. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the machine. After a year from the date of purchase, the refrigerator became defunct and at the instance of the complainant, the 3rd opposite party refilled the gas and collected Rs. 1,800/- from the complainant. On 27-07-2011, the very same complaint persisted, the 4th opposite party refilled the gas and collected Rs. 1,900/- from the complainant. At that juncture, the 4th opposite party collected Rs. 828/- towards annual maintenance charges. Thereafter on various occasions, the complainant had to repair the fridge and incurred a total sum of Rs. 7,528/- towards maintenance charges. The recurring defects were caused due to the manufacturing defect of the fridge. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties highlighting his grievances, since there was no response. The complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the refrigerator with interest together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The opposite parties 1,2 and 4 did not respond to the notice issued from this Forum for reasons of their own. The 3rd opposite party was deleted from the party array vide order in I.A. No. 79/2014 dated 27-01-2014. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A12 were marked on his side. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
3. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the refrigerator from the opposite parties?
Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
4. Point No. i. :- The complainant purchased a refrigerator from the 2nd opposite party on 14-02-2009 at a price of Rs. 12,000/-, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party evident from Ext. A1 invoice. According to the complainant, time and again, he had to approach the 3rd and 4th opposite parties to get the defects of the refrigerator rectified. The complainant maintains that the opposite parties could not rectify the recurring defects of the refrigerator due to its manufacturing defect.
5. Evidently, the complainant had to approach the 3rd and 4th opposite parties to get the defects of the refrigerator rectified on the following occasions :-
Sl. No. | Date | Exhibits | Serviced by | Service charge |
| 03-04-2010 | A2 | OP 3 | Rs. 1,800/- |
| 27-07-2011 | A3 | OP 4 | Rs. 1,900/- |
| 12-09-2011 | A4 | OP 4 | Rs. 400/- |
| 28-10-2011 | A5 | Tek Care India Pvt. Ltd. | - |
| 16-04-2013 | A6 | OP 4 | Rs. 2,100/- |
| 25-04-2013 | A7 | OP 4 | Rs. 250/- |
| 21-08-2013 | A8 | OP 4 | Rs. 450/- |
Thus, the complainant had to expend a total sum of Rs. 6,700/- to rectify the recurring defects of the machine. The opposite parties could not rectify the same without any reasons. The above recurring defects of the machine were caused only due to its manufacturing defect. The absence of the opposite parties in this Forum speaks volumes. We find that the opposite parties are liable to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with a new one.
6. Point No. ii. :- The primary grievance of the complainant having been met sufficiently, we refrain from ordering compensation and costs of the proceedings. Rejected hence.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that, the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 shall jointly and severally replace the refrigerator of the complainant with a new one according to the choice of the complainant. The difference in price, if any shall be met by either. The complainant is directed to return the defective refrigerator to the opposite parties 1,2 and 4 simultaneously.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of February 2014.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Forwarded/By order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Invoice dt. 14-02-2009 |
“ A2 | :: | Cash receipt dt. 03-04-2010 |
“ A3 | :: | Cash receipt dt. 27-07-2011 |
“ A4 | :: | Cash receipt dt. 12-09-2011 |
“ A5 | :: | Annual maintenance contract |
“ A6 | :: | Cash receipt dt. 16-04-2013 |
“ A7 | :: | Cash receipt dt. 25-04-2013 |
“ A8 | :: | Cash receipt dt. 21-08-2013 |
“ A9 | :: | Copy of the lawyer notice dt. 01-10-2013 |
“ A10 | :: | Postal receipts |
“ A11 | :: | Acknowledgment card |
“ A12 | :: | Three returned envelopes |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
