BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> C.C.No. 99/2007 Filed on 13..04..2007<br /> <br /> Dated : 16..08..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> K. Vijayakumar, T.C.23/572, Thunduvilakathu Veedu, Valiasala, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. Narayan. R)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. United Radio & Electricals, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 2.M/s. Whirlpool India Limited, C.C.39/3521, M.G. Road, Ravipuram, Cochin – 16.<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 26..07..2008, the Forum on 16..08..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The complainant's case is as follows: The complainant is conducting a small shop in the K.S.R.T.C Shopping Complex at East Fort. On 29..05..2000 he purchased a Refrigerator manufactured by 2nd opposite party through its dealer 1st opposite party. The said refrigerator had a warranty of 5 years. But 6 months after the purchase, on 28..02..2007, the freezer of the refrigerator became defective. The complainant informed the same to the 1st opposite party who directed to the complainant to approach the authorised service centre of 2nd opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram, the Hi-Tech Solution at Vazhuthacaud and the technician from the Hi-Tech Solution took the refrigerator to that service centre. On March 8, 2007 when the complainant enquired about the condition of the fridge at the service centre, he was informed that the freezer had a hole and the same had been removed with the door also replaced and issued a bill for Rs.1,700/-. The complainant pointed out that it is the duty of the service centre to repair the fridge free of cost within the warranty period, he was informed that the delivery cannot be taken without paying the bill amount. According to the complainant the availability of the fridge was very essential in his shop, hence he was compelled to pay the amount. But when the same was taken back to the shop of the complainant, he was shocked to see that not only the freezer was not working, but the whole fridge itself had stopped functioning. As per the complainant the so called new door fixed was also an old one fixed using rusted nuts and bolts. Complainant immediately informed to Hi-Tech Solutions, who once again took the refrigerator from the shop. The complainant approached the opposite parties and asked them to replace the fridge, but the opposite parties were not ready and willing to settle the matter. The fridge is still with Hi-Tech Solutions and the complainant states that a fridge is essential to conduct his cool drinks shop, without the same causes huge loss to him. Hence he filed the complaint for the replacement of the refrigerator and compensation for mental agony.<br /> <br /> 2.The opposite parties are ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 4 documents. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4.<br /> <br /> 4. Points to be considered:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?<br /> 5. Points (i) & (ii) : The complainant in this case has produced sufficient documents and adduced evidence to prove his case. Ext.P1 is the bill of Rs.16,000/- the price of the refrigerator issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 29..08..2006. Ext. P2 is the bill of purchase of stabilizer dated 29..08..2006. Ext. P3 is the warranty card. Ext. P4 is the bill for Rs.1,700/- issued by the Hi-Tech Solutions.<br /> <br /> 6. The Ext.P3 document warranty card shows that the refrigerator has 5 years warranty. The defects had occurred during the warranty period. Hence it is the duty of the opposite parties to repair the fridge free of cost. But the opposite parties charged a huge amount of Rs.1,700/- for the repair. The defect was immediately after the purchase ie within 6 months of the purchase. Though the complainant paid Rs.1,700/- as per Ext.P4 to the opposite party as the repairing charge, but the refrigerator was not repaired properly. After the repairing the refrigerator has become totally faulty and useless. This act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant in this case is conducting a small shop the use of a refrigerator is essential for running his cool drinks business. The non-availability of the refrigerator might have caused huge loss to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate for that loss.<br /> <br /> 7. As per Sec.13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, expert opinion is necessary to decide the case, but in this case since the faulty refrigerator is with the custody of the opposite parties the said procedure is not capable of being followed. As per the ruling cited in 1994(4)SCC 315 it is the settled position that no fault can be found with District fora, State fora or the National Commission in the matter of not following the procedure under Sec 13(1)(c) when the complainant was not in possession of the same. For the foregoing discussions the complaint is allowed and directed the 2nd opposite party - the manufacturer of the refrigerator to replace a new refrigerator of the same model or to refund the price of the refrigerator of Rs. 16,000/- to the complainant. And also shall pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the complaint. Time for compliance is two months, if failed to pay within that period the above said amounts shall carry 9% interest from the date of the order till the date of payment.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of August, 2008.<br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT. <br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC.No.99/2007<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I.Complainant's witness: NIL<br /> <br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> <br /> P1 : Photocopy of retail invoice No.4428 dated 29..05..2006 for Rs. 16,000/-<br /> P2 : “ “ No. 4429 dated 29..05..06 for Rs.1,000/-<br /> <br /> P3(a) : Photocopy of warranty card of Model No.320 matigerator dated 29.08.06<br /> P3(b) : Photocopy of warranty card<br /> <br /> P4 : Photocopy of field cash receipt No.10503 dated 09..03..07 forRs.1,700/-.<br /> <br /> III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties documents: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br />