BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 24/11/2011
Date of Order : 31/05/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 659/2011
Between
Jinu Antony, S/o. Antony, | :: | Complainant |
II/181, Kunukkasseril House, Near St. George Church, Eroor. P.O., Tripunithura – 682 306. |
| (Party-in-person) |
And
1. Videocon International Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
Rep. by its Managing Director, 14th Kms Stone, Aurangabad – Paithan Road, Chitegaon, Aurangabad – 431 105. 2. Videocon Customer Care Center, Rep. by its Manager, Kandathil Building, Karshaka Road, Near South Over Bridge, Cochin – 16. |
| (By authorised representative) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :
The complainant purchased a refrigerator at a price of Rs. 9,796/-. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party is the authorised service centre of the 1st opposite party. The refrigerator had shown various defects right from the date of purchase. On several occasions, the 2nd opposite party carried out its repairs. The complainant has not been able to use the machine properly till date. On 08-10-2011, smoke and foul smell emitted from the refrigerator. The wiring and other components inside the fridge were burnt owing to its manufacturing defect. In spite of repeated requests, the opposite parties failed to replace the gadget. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party :
The complainant has failed to raise any complaint with the retailer. The complainant failed to implead the retailer in the party array. The 1st opposite party provided a 'toil free number' to register the complaints, if any of the customers. Had there been any complaint, the complainant could have raised the same to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party received such a complaint only on 08-10-2011. The smoke and foul smell may emit from the refrigerator mainly on the following circumstances :
Due to high voltage.
Service done by unauthorized technicians.
On cleaning occasions possibility for detergent or liquid entry into inner settings.
As per the depreciation policy of the company, replacement of fridge is based on depreciation chart approved by the 1st opposite party. In the present case, the fridge is not repairable. Based on the chart, the value of the damaged fridge is diminished by 85% of the purchase price. The 1st opposite party is ready to provide a refrigerator after getting the 85% of the price of the machine.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Ext. A1 was marked on the side of the complainant. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant who appeared in person and the authorised representative of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are :
Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the defective refrigerator with a new one?
Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Admittedly, the complainant purchased the refrigerator from Next Retail shop, Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam. Again, it is not disputed that the refrigerator became defunct on 08-10-2011. The opposite party contended that the defect highlighted by the complainant can be caused by various reasons. But nothing is on record to substantiate the same. In this case, the opposite party categorically stated that the refrigerator is not in a repairable condition. They further stated that the complainant is to pay 85% of the price of the refrigerator to provide a brand new one as per their replacement policy. However, we are not to agree with the above contentions of the opposite party especially so, it is the duty of the manufacturer to provide service to the customer. In this case, the 1st opposite party failed to provide any service to the complainant and also admitted that the gadget is not repairable.
6. Having admitted their fault or inefficiency they have brought the complainant to knock at the doors of this Forum for no other relief available. We are of the considered view that at no costs a consumer shall be put to such predicament. There is nothing in law where a situation arises however difficult which does not have a solution. Equitably, it would be justifiable to order that the complainant return the defective refrigerator to the opposite parties at his own cost and the opposite parties shall deliver a brand new refrigerator of the same price and model on receipt of 50% of the price of the same from the complainant. The grievance of the complainant having been met squarely putting neither party to enjoy or irreparable loss, we are not inclined to award costs or compensation.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the refrigerator of the complainant with a new one of the same price according to the choice of the complainant, provided the complainant pays 50% of the price. It is made clear that the complainant shall pay the excess price, if any of his choice. The complainant shall return the defective refrigerator to the opposite parties simultaneously as aforesaid.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2012
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the bill dt. 17-05-2007 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
