The fact of the complainant in a nutshell is that on 24.03.2013 the father of the complainant purchased one refrigerator (of Kelvinator) from Great Eastern Appliance Pvt. Ltd. Uttarpara, Hooghly . After purchasing the refrigerator the same started problem . The complainant further states that nearly 4 to 5 times the timer has been changed and the
compressor and cooling problem arises many times. The complainant launched many complaints to the oPs for the defective refrigerator . The Ops technician came to the house of the complainant to repair the refrigerator in question but in vain. Hence finding no other alternative the complainant has come before this Forum praying for relief as mentioned in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The Op no.1 i.e. Videocon Industries Ltd. entered appearance and filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations but admitted that the complainant Ashok Kumar Jain purchased the refrigerator on 24.3.2013 and warranty period was one year from the date of purchase. It is surprised enough that although the oP no.1 filed their Written version but they did not divulge any positive case in the written version excepting admission of purchasing by the complainant and pointed out some technical mistake done by the complainant in his petition of complaint i.e. the complainant is not a consumer on the ground that the complainant has not filed the present complaint , the complaint is time barred, the complainant wrote the price of the refrigerator in his complaint amounting to Rs.14,000/- but the actual price is Rs.13,656/- etc. and prayed for dismissal of the case.
The oP no.2 although received the summon but did not turn up before the Forum and hence the case against the Op no.2 was heard exparte.
The complainant filed Xerox copy of Cash memo, warranty card, evidence in chief. On the other hand, Op no.1 did not file any document except W.V. , Evidence in chief and W.N.A.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
The father of the complainant has purchased the refrigerator from the shop of the oP no.2 after paying consideration money of Rs.13,656/- so the father of the complainant is a consumer under the oPs u/s 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act, 1986. Thus, the point no.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3
Both the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
Complainant has stated the malfunctioning of the refrigerator . Complainant’s allegation get its support in the Written version of Manoj Bhattacharya , authorized person of OP no.1 showing that compressor and cooling problem arose many times and stated when job done and they were called , the job done was timer replaced , defrost timer adjust , thermostat adjust , defrost timer replaced . These admissions of repairing work obviously shows there was defect which was well within warranty period and not only that near 4 to 5 time repairing was done. So the allegation of the complainant that he purchased the defective refrigerator from Op no.2 manufactured by Op no.1. The father of the complainant purchased the article from the OP
no.2. So the alleviate of suffering of the complainant’s father OP no.2 has some liability either to cure the defect completely or to change the refrigerator by new one, because it one’s thought that he shall purchased a household articles having defects. The oP no.2 who sold the articles to the father of the complainant did not contest the case so adverse presumption that OP no.2 sold the defectful refrigerator to the father of the complainant by taking money.
So, from the material on record it is established that the refrigerator had defect when the complainant’s father purchased the same from the shop of the oP no.2. The complainant paid Rs.13,656/- with 13.5% VAT 1400/- i.e. Rs.14,656/- approximate and obviously OP no.1 and oP no.2 have joint liability for giving such defect article to the complainant/consumer. This is a clear example of unfair trade practice. Accordingly, the material on record convinced us that complainant’s case is proved and complainant is entitled to get relief as per Section 14 of the C.P.Act., 1986. The Ops are bound to give compensation because complainant intended to purchase a good articles with good service . The article subsequently became defectful . The complainant approached Op no.2 . The OPno.2 did not take appropriate step to return the refrigerator and replaced the same by good one. These caused the complainant to run pillar to post and come before this Consumer Forum for getting relief, otherwise the complainant would not come before this Forum praying relief. Such wrongful act of the Ops might cause harassment of complainant and mental pain and agony of complainant. So the oP no.1 and 2 must compensate by giving money to the complainant for causing harassment and mental pain along with litigation cost . Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 121 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Op no.1 and 2 are jointly or severally directed to replace the refrigerator in question by a new one with same model or alternatively refund the price/ cost of the refrigerator with VAT to the complainant . The Op no.1 and 2 are also jointly or severally directed to pay 10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his mental agony, harassment and pain. Both the Ops are also jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
All the above orders shall be complied by the Op no.1 and 2 jointly and severally within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order i.d. in addition to the above amount both the Ops shall jointly an severally pay Rs.200/- per day and that amount will be deposited to the Consumer Legal Aid Fund till the full realisation.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost.
