DATE OF FILING : 11.06.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.126/2010

Between

Complainant : Antochan Antony,

Chakkankulam House,

Silvagiri Estate,

Pampadumpara P.O,

Nedumkandam – 685 553,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Proprietor,

Home Gallery,

Kattappana P.O,

Pin 685 508,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: V.K.Shaji)

2. Whirl Pool of India Limited,

A-8, Vaitalik Building,

U.S.O Road,

Qutab Institutional Area,

New Delhi – 110 067.

O R D E R

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
 

Complainant purchased a Fridge from the opposite party on 10.03.2003 for Rs.25,000/- and used it in his house at Pampadumpara. The fridge showed defects from the very beginning itself. After 4 or 5 months the fridge became defective. The petitioner informed the matter to the opposite party. The opposite party has repaired it in 3 times but the defect was not cured. Then the opposite party intimated that there is a new scheme of additional warranty, if the complainant ready to join the scheme he could get further warranty of 72 months from the company. Complainant agreed and paid Rs.1,995/- for obtaining additional warranty. Thereafter the complainant had shifted his residence to Pala. Again the fridge became defective. The petitioner informed the matter to the opposite party again. The opposite party's service centre named “Jiss Engineering” had approached the petitioner and took the fridge to their service centre on 10.12.2009. After that the petitioner telephonically asked about the fridge, but non-availability of spare parts is the reason for not repairing the fridge. Anyway the complainant is not satisfied and he had taken his fridge from the opposite party's service centre on 28.1.2010. The opposite party is not engaging the repairing work. With additional warranty the petitioner is entitled to receive service from the opposite party. The opposite party's Home Care plan is not helpful to the petitioner. He spent an additional amount of Rs.1,995/- in this aspect. Hence he filed this petition before the Forum.
 

2. The Ist opposite party, dealer had filed written version. In the written version, it is stated that the petitioner had informed the matter of defect to the opposite party only in 2005, after that he never made a complaint. The opposite party says that the fridge became defective because of the careless handling of the petitioner himself. They never made any offer for additional warranty. Warranty period liability is landed on to the part of the company only.

3. After filing the complaint, the petitioner had impleaded the manufacturing company as the 2^nd opposite party. Inspite of notice from the Forum the 2^nd opposite party was absent.
 

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced by the Ist opposite party.
 

6. The POINT :- The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 had filed his affidavit also. Ext.P1 is the bill for the purchase of fridge and Ext.P2 is its warranty card. PW1 the petitioner was examined, opposite party was absent and no cross examination has done. Ext.P2 is the warranty card of the fridge issued by the 2^nd opposite party, one of the well known company of Home appliances. Ext.P2 shows their trade mark. According to Ext.P2, petitioner could claim an additional warranty of 72 months. To keep good customer relation, and to provide adequate service facility, the company can retain their goodwill. Adequate service facility is a good trade practice, here the opposite parties are failed in this aspect. So we think that there is service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to repair the disputed fridge in question in free of cost within one month as per Ext.P2 warranty card. The Ist opposite party is also directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of October, 2010

Sd/-
 

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Anto Antony

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Cash Bill dated 10.10.2003 for Rs.25,000/- issued by the opposite party

Ext.P2 - Warranty Card issued by the opposite party

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil