Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/75/2015

Anil N Kori - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor Revankar Electronics Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

N M Patil And J A Kori

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.75/2015

                     Date of filing: 10/02/2015

                                                                  Date of disposal: 25/11/2016

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Shri. Anil Nagappa Kori, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Private Service, C/o: Shri. N.F. Kori, R/o: C-III, C-2, Govt. PWD Quarters, Vishweshwaraiah Nagar, Belgaum.                     (Rep. by Sri.N.M. Patil, Adv.)

                                                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  - V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.           2.

The Proprietor, Revankar Electronics Corporation, 1611, Maruti Galli, & 1944, Kadolkar Galli, Belgaum.               (Rep. by Sri.M.G. Kulkarni, Adv.)   Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltdd., Appliance Division, Corporate Office, 28, Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce Building, Crescent Road, Near Shivanand Circle, Bangalore.                   (Rep. by Sri.P.V. Malannavar, Adv.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                    J U D G M E N T

 

 

By Sri. A.G.Maldar, President.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) to replace the refrigerator or refund the entire amount and also the amount of repairs alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization and compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards Mental agony & any other reliefs etc.,

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

           The complainant is contended that, the complainant  had   purchased the refrigerator for his domestic use from the OP.No.1, who is the Authorized Dealer and OP.No.2 is the Manufacturer, distributor and supplier of the same. The complainant has purchased refrigerator under the tax Invoice No.15369 on dtd:10.11.2010 from the Op.No.1, the product is Godrej 181 Liters SW Red Pentacool Refrigerator Model No.GDPVS 195 T, Unit Serial No.JS 1009229050 for Rs.12,000/- and at the time of purchase the Op.No.1 assured the complainant for providing the best and proper service. Believing in the words of the Op.No.1, the complainant has purchased the said refrigerator. But, within a few months from the date of purchase, the said refrigerator was not working properly and suddenly it used to stop working and not cooling. The complainant brought to the notice to Op.No.1 regarding non working of refrigerator and given for repair, the expert of OP.No.1 i.e. authorized service provider M/s. Dhanashree Enterprise and M/s. Ocean Enterprises, Belgaum. The complainant many times visited to the authorized service centre for repairs and checked the said refrigerator but all the efforts of complainant went in vain and not set right.

 

          It is further contended that, the expert of the Op.No.1 many times repaired the same at the cost of the complainant. On one occasion the men from Op.No.1 collected Rs.1,475/- and on other occasion of Rs.775/- towards repairs of the said refrigerator. Similarly, on 2-3 occasions they collected amount towards repairs of the same from complainant but all went in vain. Inspite of repairing the same by the experts, the said refrigerator is not at all working properly. It is further submitted that, there is some manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and it is often getting off and  stopping the cooling. Inspite of best efforts from the experts of the company and service centre of OPs, the said defect is not set right. Though the Op.No.1 assured of getting it repaired/replaced, nothing has been done so far. Due to inefficient and non providing the proper and timely service the complainant has been put to lot of mental agony, torture and shock and deprived of making use of the refrigerator during the summer days. Now the summer days of this season have completed and due to the ineffective, deficient and timely service, the complainant has been put to untold hardship and inconvenience. The conduct on the part of Ops amounts to unfair trade practice and Op.No.1 has not adhered to the warranty terms and conditions. As per the company warranty card the compressor carries guarantee of 60 months.

 

          It is further also contended that, the complainant having left with no other alternate remedy issued legal notice dtd:15.10.2014 to the Ops but inspite of service of said notice they have not complied the same and hence complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the Ops to replace the refrigerator or refund the entire amount and also the amount of repairs alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization and compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards Mental agony & any other reliefs etc.,

 

3.      After issuance of notice to the Ops, the Ops have appeared through their Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by way of filing their written version separate and strongly opposed the claim and Op.No.1 contending that, the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is fact that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator and it was installed in the month of November 2010, it is denied that on the day of installation it starts noise and not working properly and the service people have attended and inspected the refrigerator and opined that the refrigerator is having manufacturing defects etc., are all false and strongly denied by this Op.No.1.

 

          It is further false to say that, believing in the words of the Op.No.1 the complainant has purchased the said refrigerator but, within few months the said refrigerator have not working properly and further false to say that, the complainant brought to notice of the Op.No.1 and the expert of Op.No.1 provide service, but all efforts by complainant went in vain. It is further false to say that, whenever OP 1 repaired the refrigerator they charged service by taking bill and it is further false to submits that, there is some manufacturing defects in the refrigerator and it is often getting off and stopping the cooling.

          It is further also false to say that, inspite of best efforts    from the experts of OPs and service centre, the said defect was not set right and assured to replace nothing has been done so far are all false.

 

          The Op.No.1 submitted that, he is dealer in sales of T.Vs, washing machines, refrigerators and other electronic products and the refrigerator purchase by the complainant is manufactured and supplied by Op.No.2. The Op.No.1 is only deals in sales of the product of Godrej Company and the complainant has purchased as per his choose and Op.No.1 has never induced or forced to the complainant to purchase as alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that, whenever the complainant give complaint and the same has been  intimated to the authorized service centre of the company and same were attended by them. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Op.No.1 and prayed for dismissed the complaint.       

 

4.      The Op.No.2 contended that, it is one of the reputed company having global recognition in manufacturing and marketing of home appliances from several decades, having its marketing establishment through the world and also having a good appreciations from the consumer end. Further the Op.No.2 is being a reputed company has maintained a good quality in their outputs. The complainant has filed this false complaint only to harass the Op.No.2 and to make unlawful gain, the Op.No.2 further contended that, the relief claimed by the complainant in the complaint is unlawful and is not maintainable for any such reliefs claimed in the complaint, the Op.No.2 denied all the averments made by the complainant.

 

          The contents of para No.2 of the complaint is partly true and false, the experts from the Op.No.1 many times repaired the same at the cost of the complainant same is not within the knowledge of the Op.No.2 hence, same is denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complainant averment that, though the Op.No.1 assured of getting it repaired/replaced, nothing has been done so far, same is not within the knowledge of the Op.No.2 and remaining para of the complaint are denied.  

          It is further stated that when there is no defect in refrigerator the question of replacement or refund of cost does not arise at all, the said refrigerator is not so defective to replace as alleged by the complainant. The complainant having used the same for more than five years continuously without any problem or complaint and complainant cannot seek for replacement. The intention of the complainant is manifest from the prayer column itself. No cause of action has arisen to file this complaint etc., hence Op.No.2 has prayed for dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

 

5.      The complainant in support of his case, he has filed his affidavit evidence as PW 1 and produced 06 documents, for our convenience we marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. As against this,  the Op.No.1 has not choose to file his affidavit hence, his evidence taken as nil and on behalf of the Op.No.2 has filed his affidavit evidence as RW 1 and not produced any documents. Both sides have submitted their written arguments, in which also they have put forward the same contention as urged in their complaint, written version, evidence of affidavit. Oral arguments on the both side have been heard.

 

Now, on the basis of these facts, the following points are arise for our consideration:

 

1.  Whether the complainant has proved that, there is negligent and deficiency of service on the part of Ops for not replace the refrigerator or refund the cost?

 

2. What order?

 

6.      Answer to the above Points:-

 

1.  Negative.

 

2.  As per final Order.

 

 

REASONS:-

 

7.      Point No.1: After perusing the evidence of both parties and scanning the written arguments it is evident and admitted fact that, the complainant has purchased the refrigerator from Op.No.1 with a description of tax Invoice No.15369 on dtd:10.11.2010 Godrej 181 Liters SW Red Pentacool Refrigerator Model No.GDPVS 195 T, Unit Serial No.JS 1009229050 for Rs.12,000/-, in this respect  the complainant has produced receipt No.15369 which is marked as Ex.P-1, which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant is a consumer as is defined under the provisions of the C.P. Act.

 

          Now the case of the complainant is that, the said purchase refrigerator, carried the warranty, the period towards compressor is 60 months as per warranty card which is marked as Ex.P-2 and further case of the complainant that, within few months from the date of purchase the refrigerator gives problem and not working and cooling properly, for that proposition the complainant has not produce any material document to show that within few month the said refrigerator gives problem as alleged in the complaint, therefore the said contention could not be accepted. Further there were two receipt, it shows that the complainant has  given intimation regard problem in the refrigerator to OP No 1 the same is intimated to the service team of Op.No.2, the service team personally attended and inspected the refrigerator and observed that, there was a problem and same problem have been repaired immediately by the service team of OP no 2 and the refrigerator was made ready, which is in the year of 2013 after three years from the date of purchase, which is evident from the receipt which is marked as Ex P-3a and P-3b. But, as per warranty it is crystal clear that, only one year warranty on all other parts (except bulb, glass and add-on plastic parts) from the date of purchase against defective material or workmanship. In case of any such defect found during the first year from date of purchase will undertake repairs to free of charge but in this case, the  defect found after the one year from date of purchase, the appliance will be repaired on payment of necessary charges which has been mentioned in
Ex.P-3a and Ex P-3b, therefore the said repair receipt did not speak towards defect in compressor as alleged by the complainant. It might have some problem towards refrigerator does it mean that the compressor is manufacture defect without any expert report? Therefore in our considered view it is not manufacture defect and it is not unfair trade practice as alleged by the complaint and it is not amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Ops.     

          The said contention has not proved by the complainant by producing cogent and reliable document to show that, the Refrigerator has manufactured defective and neither the complainant has lead any evidence of expert nor produce any expert report of the same, it is well settled proposition of law that in absence of any expert report it cannot be said that there was a manufacture defect in the refrigerator as alleged by the complainant. Hence, the contention of the complainant is not acceptable and it has no forced or merit in the contention. Further, it is evident from the receipt that, the receipt paid towards repair charge is contradict to his pleading in respect of problem in refrigerator that as stated in pleading i.e. within few months from the date of purchase the said refrigerator not working and not properly cooling, if that is the case, why the complainant produced  said receipts which is marked as Ex.P-3a and Ex.P-3b wherein it is clearly mentioned that, the date as 25.04.2013 of Rs.775/- and 17.09.2013 of Rs.1,475/- respectively. Further perused the prayer of complainant that, the complainant directly  insisted for replacement that itself shows that, the intention of complaint is to get the new Refrigerator and even the complainant has not established that, the compressor is not working properly and he has not produced any material document to hold that, the complainant has given refrigerator for repair of compressor, for that proposition of law neither he lead the expert evidence nor produced expert report towards the compressor and even the complainant has not produced any independent evidence to prove that, the Refrigerator often and often not working and not cooling and its parts were not functioning properly. But mere pleading in the complaint and evidence of affidavit is not sufficient to establish and hold that there is a manufactured defect. Hence, in our consider view the complainant have utterly failed to prove his case as alleged in the complaint and there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and it is not amounts to unfair trade practice. Mere two times repaired the refrigerator is not a defect which was also after 3 years,  for that proposition we would like to refer a decision of the Hon’ble National commission reported in I (2012) C.P.J.2014 (NC) wherein it is held that the complainant was housewife and had no knowledge of mechanical operation of photo-imager machine and she does not possess any technical skill so as to highlight manufacturing defect, and further held that complainant failed to prove that the said machine suffered from any manufacturing defect and there was in deficiency in service rendered by the OPs. So in the instance case it is aptly applicable the above said decision for the reason that the complainant has not adduced expert evidence to prove his contention. Further we would like to another decision reported in I (2013) C.P.J. 47 (NC) wherein it is observed that mere fact that vehicle was taken to service station for one or two times, does not ipso-facto prove manufacturing defect and further held that report of expert was essential or some other evidence showing manufacturing defect would have been adduced. Therefore, the above referred decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission aptly applicable to the case in hand because in this case also there is no any expert report regarding defect in compressor as the complainant is expert to decide the defect in the compressor and also to prove the defect in compressor. No doubt it is true that the compressor warranty period is 60 months but it was not defect in condition and even the complainant has not make effort to get or expert report towards compressor is not working, so therefore the question of replacement of refrigerator or refund of cost does not arise at all.

 

          We have gone through above said observation of Hon’ble National Commission and pleading of both parties, the complainant having used the same for continuous usage of five long years, the said Refrigerator is not defective piece, the question of replacement or refund of cost does not arise at all.

 

          Looking to the fact and circumstance we have observed that even  the complainant not at all proves his case by giving evidence of  any expert or through appointment of court Commissioner Report in respect of defect as  alleged by the complainant, for that proposition of law we would like to refer  decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 2014 (Part 9) CPR 779 (NC) Dr. Nilesh G. Nimavat V/s. Medipicks & Anr. Where in it is Important Point: Manufacturing defect must be proved by expert evidence.

        That, the complainant has neither produced any expert opinion or report nor any such job card or record suggesting that, there were defecting in the refrigerator  and not cooling on part of compressor, the complainant having used the same for five years.

          Hence, the complainant has failed to prove the alleged defects in the said Refrigerator with corroborative and convincing evidence, due to which said refrigerator in not proper working and not cooling’s. Therefore, looking from any angle the complainant can’t claim compensation from Ops and there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops. Therefore, in our considered openion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we answer this Point negative. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

 

O R D E R

 

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by dismissed.

 

No order as to costs. 

 

 

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this  25^th day of November, 2016).

 

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.