IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 28th day of April, 2018
Filed on 27.03.2012
Present
1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim , BA,LLM (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.111/2012
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt.Sajitha 1. The Proprietor, Star Electronics
W/o P.M.Thajudeen, East of Manorama Juction,
Sijin Mansil, Main Road, Cherthala,
Manappuram.P.O, Alappuzha.
Poochackal-688556 (By Adv.D. Deepak)
Cherthala Taluk,
Alappuzha. 2. The Manager
Electrolux , EKL Appliances Ltd
Corporate Office-03rd Floor
Globel Business Park,
Mehrauli, Gurgaon,
Hariyana-122002
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The above case is based on a consumer complaint file by one Sajitha against two opposite parties seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15000/- and costs Rs.2000/- for selling defective refrigerator by the opposite parties.
2. The case of the complainant in short is as follows.
The complaint had purchased a refrigerator on 08-07-2008 and the product became defective during the warranty period. On her complaint the same was replaced. But unfortunately the replaced refrigerator again started malfunctioning and the same was intimated to the 1st opposite party and accordingly a mechanic deputed on first opposite party inspected the product and replaced the compressor but the defect of the fridge was not properly rectified. There after the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and intimated about the defect. Again a mechanic inspected the machine and found that there was gas leakage and demanded to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- for rectifying the same. But the complainant was not willing to pay the amount. Hence filed this complaint seeking compensation of Rs.15000/- together with cost.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. 1st opposite party filed version. Notice against 2nd opposite party returned as left.
4. The first opposite party filed version raising the following contentions.
The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has suppressed material facts. It is true that the refrigerator was once replaced but the complaint intentionally suppressed the date on which it was replaced and the date on which the complaint was reported to the dealer further the date on which the mechanic went to inspect the fridge and rectified the complaint is also not mentioned. The complainant has no definite case. Every complaint received at the dealer’s office will be forwarded to the maintenance section maintained by the company and it is the company who sends the mechanic to the house of the person who made the complaint. The duty of the dealer ends when the information of complaint is passed on the mechanical section. It is not the dealer who is sending the mechanic or charging for the work done. In this particular case “Electrolux” refrigerators have a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase. Further it has an additional warranty of 48 months on compressors. The complaint has not produced the original warranty card where in it is clearly stated as “The additional warranty of 48 months on the compressor will only apply, provided that the company is satisfied in its sole discretion that the defect is due to the use of faulty material and fault in workmanship and not due to abnormal and improper use. Such warranty will only include repair/ replacement of compressor, free of charge. However all other charges including inspection charge, gas charging, transportation charge, and all other components, if any, will have to be borne by the customer”. The first opposite party further prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. The case was once heard by the Forum and passed a one line order as `allowed’ on 16-6-2012. Since there was no detailed order the subsequent learned President of District Forum Suo Moto reopened the case for fresh disposal. Notice was issued to both sides. Notice against 2nd opposite party returned as left. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant. However the complainant got marked the warrantee card as Ext.A1. No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced by the contesting 1st opposite party. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 1st opposite party.
6. Considering the pleadings of the parties the forum has raised the following issues.
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs as prayed for.
7. Issues 1 and 2:-
According to the complainant she had purchased a refrigerator from the 1st opposite party on 08-07-2008. The product has 1 year warranty. During the warranty period the product became defective and the 1st opposite party has replaced the fridge with a new one. But unfortunately the replaced fridge again became defective and the 1st opposite party has replaced the compressor. But the defect was not properly rectified and the complainant again contacted the 1st opposite party and intimated about the defect and accordingly a mechanic inspected the fridge and found that there was leakage of gas and demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- for rectifying the defect. But the complainant is not willing to pay the amount. Hence filed this complaint seeking compensation and cost.
Complainant produced the warranty card before the Forum which is marked as Ext A1. In view of Ext.A1 document it can be seen that the complainant had purchased the fridge on 08-07-2008 and the product is having one year warranty. According to the complainant the said fridge became defective during the warranty period and the 1st opposite party has replaced the fridge with a new one. But the replaced fridge also became defective. The complainant has not mentioned the date on which the defect was noticed or when the defect was intimated to the opposite parties. Admittedly the replaced fridge also has 1 year warranty and also having an additional 48 months warranty for the compressor. The complaint was filed on 27-03-2012 and the date of purchase of the first fridge was on 08-07-2008. So definitely the warranty period of 1 year for the replaced fridge was also over. There is nothing on record to show that the replaced fridge became defective during the warranty period. So the existing warranty is for the compressor only. Therefore the opposite parties are bound to rectify the defect free of cost if the defect is with regards to the compressor. In the instant case the opposite parties have replaced the compressor free of cost and the present complaint is due to the leakage of gas. As per clause No.7 of Terms and conditions of warranty the charges including gas charging, transportation, and inspection are to be borne by the customers. So the mechanic who inspected the fridge demanded charges for rectifying the defect. The case of the complainant is that the person inspected the fridge found that there was gas leakage and demanded on amount of Rs. 2000/- for correcting the same. Complainant has no case that 1st opposite party has not attended the complaint nor provided proper after sale services. The documents produced by the complainant would not show the product became defective during the warranty period or the product purchased by the complainant has recurring defects. In view of the available materials it cannot be attributed that there is any deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we find no merit in the compliant and the same is only to be dismissed.
In the result the complaint stands dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of April 2018.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Warranty card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
