This is a complaint made by one Paresh Chatterjee, son of Late Atul Chandra Chatterjee of 31/B, Becharam Chatterjee Road, Behala, P.S.- Parnasree, Kolkata-700 034 against (1) the Regional Head Videocon Industries Limited, Block BL-BP/ Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091, OP No.1, (2) The General Manager, Videocon Industries Limited, 39A, Harish Chatterjee Road, Mallick Court, 3rd floor, Kolkata-700 025, OP No.2 and (3) The Head, Sales Emporium (South), 226, Diamond Harbour Road, P.s.- Parnasree, Kolkata-700 060, OP No.3, praying for (a) direction to rectify the defect of the refrigerator, purchased by the Complainant, upon the OP, (b) to refund the entire amount together with interest, and also (c) Compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a consumer and is a senior citizen aged about 77 years. Complainant purchased a Videocon refrigerator being Model No.VAL 233SS/1,H after paying Rs.9,990/- from Sales Emporium, 226, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S.- Parnasree. At the time of purchase, Complainant paid cash Rs.2,000/- and rest Rs.7,990/- he paid through cheque bearing No.328561 of Allahabad Bank dt.19.2.2010.
Videocon Refrigerator provides 1+4 years warranty from the date of purchase i.e. 19.2.2010. Further, Complainant has stated that refrigerator stopped functioning from 12.5.2011 on which Complainant contacted the service centre through the Company’s toll free number and technician was sent and complaint was registered. Company charged Rs.250/- for visit.
Thereafter, the refrigerator was collected by M/s Millenium Service Centre on 14.5.2011 from the home of Complainant. On 23.5.2011, Complainant was directed to pay Rs.1,980/- as repair charges. Thereafter, on and from September,24, 2012 the formation of ice of the refrigerator went extremely slow and one noise started coming. Again the refrigerator was collected by the service centre and the Complainant was directed to pay Rs.500/-. Complainant was not ready to pay all the charges for repairing the refrigerator. On 3.1.2013 the refrigerator finally stopped working. Complainant had further stated that the refrigerator was with inherent defect and so it could not work properly and so he filed this case.
OP No.1 & 2 filed written version and has stated that this Complaint petition is time barred. They have admitted that Complainant purchased the refrigerator on 19.10.2010 and the warranty period of the refrigerator was for one year in respect of the total refrigerator and five years in respect of the compressor. Complainant did not approach this Forum within the period of one year from the date of purchase and he intended to avail the warranty of the compressor for other defects of the refrigerator.
Further, OP No.1 & 2 have submitted that during the warranty period Compressor may be changed. In addition OP No.1 & 2 has denied all the allegations and have prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
OP No.3 has filed separate written version wherein he has denied the allegation of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Complainant has also filed additional evidence on affidavit. OP did not file questionnaire against the affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant. OP No.3 filed evidence against which Complainant filed questionnaire. Against this Complainant did not file affidavit-in-reply. So, it appears that in prosecuting this complaint both the parties were not vigilant. However, Ld. Advocates for both the parties participated in argument.
Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed.
First prayer of Complainant is a direction upon the OP to rectify the defect of the refrigerator purchased by the Complainant. There is no doubt that Complainant did not purchase the refrigerator from the OPs. Further, the prayer is a general prayer and in this way it should not have been made.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that OPs took steps on the complaint of the Complainant but any how Complainant could not be satisfied.
Now, the question arises as to whether OPs are liable for that. In this regard, it is clear that Complainant filed this complaint after about one year three months and the warranty period of the refrigerator had expired except compressor. As such, the liability of the OPs cannot be attributed.
Second prayer of Complainant is refund of entire amount with interest.
On perusal of the Xerox copy of receipt, it appears that Complainant paid Rs.9,990/- for purchasing the refrigerator in 2010. Now, almost six years have expired. In between this six years, on many occasions Complainant got the refrigerator repaired. Of course, by paying charges. But as per Complainant it could not be brought into order for which Complainant filed this case.
In our view, at this stage, i.e. after six years this Forum cannot pass any order for refund of the entire purchase money because already six years have elapsed and the total liability of the OPs could not be established by the Complainant.
Third prayer of Complainant is compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of services. Here the question of deficiency of service is confined to one year in respect of the whole refrigerator and four years for compressor. There is no allegation specifically that due to defect in compressor refrigerator could not work properly. Had it been so, the matter would have been otherwise. But, unfortunately, there is no allegation that due to defect in compressor the refrigerator stopped functioning.
As such, we are of the view that OPs cannot be held liable for service deficiency. On behalf of the Complainant several decisions were cited. These decisions did not fit to the facts of the present case and so, do not appear to be applicable.
Accordingly, we are of the view that Complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service of the OPs and, as such, are not entitled to any relief.
Hence,
ordered
RBT/CC/240/2016 is considered and dismissed on contest.
