KERALA STATE CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL    NO. 80/2014

ORDER   DATED. 15-11-2017

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESA CHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          C.M. Ipora, S/o Late Ipora Mathew,

          Sharon, Dairy Road, Edappally P.O,

          Ernakulam, Pin. 682 024.

          (By Adv. S. Reghukumar )

                             V/S

RESPONDENTS:

1. Whirlpool of India Ltd,

Consumer Core Cell 28, NIT,

Faridabad, Hariyana, Pin. 121 001.

( By Adv. K.S. Arundas)

2. Pittappillil Agencies,Digi Park”, Toll Junction,

6 Edappally, Cochin. 682 024.

3. Jayem  Associates, Whirlpool, Authorised service centre,

Pariyarath Building, VI/66/10, Bye- pass junction,

Alwaye, Pin. 683 101.

                                                     (2)                                      

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESA CHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

Complainant in CC.541/12 of the District Forum, Ernakulam is the appellant.  His complaint alleging deficiency of service by the opposite parties was allowed in part by the District Forum directing the first and third opposite parties to deliver the repaired refrigerator to the complainant in working condition on his payment of Rs.2813/-, repair charges claimed under Ex.A-4 receipt.  The above opposite parties were also directed to provide one year warranty  for the replaced parts of the refrigerator from the date of its delivery.  Complainant not being satisfied with the  Order  with directions as above, has filed this appeal for modification of the Order  for  granting him the reliefs as canvassed   in his complaint.

          Short facts to the extent necessary for  disposal of this appeal may be summed up thus:

          Admittedly,   complainant purchased a refrigerator manufactured by the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party for a value of Rs.14,500/- in 2010.  Purchase was made in exchange of an old refrigerator for which a value of Rs.5075.99 was given as discount.  According to the complainant, the refrigerator which had a 5 year

                                                                   (3)

warrantee, had manufacturing defects  and it  led to severe damages to the freezer and compressor.  On  reporting the  defects  as directed, the refrigerator was taken to the service centre of the 1^st opposite party and,  after repair, he was issued with Ex.P-4 receipt demanding Rs.2,830/- as service charges.  The refrigerator returned was found having a bent in its door, which, according to the complainant, occurred during its repair.  He refused to take back the refrigerator and it was returned to the service centre.  He also questioned the  charges  made under Ex.A-4 towards gas filling expenses for filling gas in the compressor.  Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties, he claimed compensation.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed joint version disputing the case of   complainant.  According to them, the fridge was having   warranty  only for one year and the compressor alone had warranty  of additional four  years. Repudiating  the case of   complainant, the opposite parties contended that   charges demanded by them for repair are based on A4.   The repaired refrigerator was not collected by the complainant despite demand,  according to the opposite parties.

                                                                   (4)

Appreciating  the evidence let in by both parties which consisted  of  Ex.A-1 to A-4 for the complainant and   oral evidence of representative of 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties, examined as DW-1, the Forum below concluded that there was no deficiency of service by the opposite parties and that   complainant  is not entitled to get the cost of new refrigerator as canvassed in his complaint.  Other claims made by the complainant were also found not appealing to the District Forum, but it   held that the opposite parties were obliged to return the refrigerator after replacement of the defective parts on payment of the repair charges   under Ex.A-4 by the complainant.  In that view of the matter, District Forum issued directions as indicated earlier.  Aggrieved by that Order, complainant has preferred this appeal.

          We heard counsel on both sides and perused the records.

          There is no dispute that the compressor of the refrigerator purchased by the complainant was found defective and it was replaced by the opposite party 3, service centre of the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A-2 spells out

the warrantee conditions over the refrigerator manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  It clearly spells out that there is a one year comprehensive

                                                                   (5)

warranty  for the refrigerator and 4 years warranty  for the compressor.  Specific clause providing  for  four  years warranty  of compressor reads thus:

“The compressor to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service.  WOIL’s obligation under this warrantee shall be limited to repairing or providing the replacement of compressor with another in working condition which thus proves defective within 4 years commencing immediately after the expiry of the 1 year period from the date of purchase and which on WOIL’s examination discloses to its satisfaction to be thus defective.  This warrantee covers compressor only.  Gas charging is included only when compressor is defective and inoperative.  It does not cover any other part such as condenser, freezer, capillary, suction line, overload protector, relay, theremostat etc.”

The above clause demonstrates that the manufacturer has to bear the cost when the compressor is found defective.  Where the compressor of the refrigerator purchased by the complainant was found defective and required replacement, gas charging expenses could not have been demanded from the complainant as was done under Ex.A-4 receipt.  Amount of Rs.1200/- claimed towards gas charging expenses and also

                                                                   (6)

service charges thereof, claimed under that head, was not realizable from the complainant.  When such a demand was made to the complainant for payment of gas charging expenses overlooking the warranty   over the  refrigerator, certainly, that  amounted to deficiency of service.  District Forum has not examined the warranty  conditions and it has led to a finding that the opposite parties are justified in demanding  gas charging expenses.  Of course, after going through the materials, we find that the complainant has not established his case that the refrigerator returned had a bent on its door and it was caused after it was collected from his house for repair.  But the larger question is was he justified in not accepting the repaired refrigerator after the replacement of the freezer unit and compressor.  When an unjustifiable demand for gas charging was made overlooking the warranty conditions by the service centre i.e. 3^rd opposite party of the 1^st opposite party, we are of the view that the complainant was justified in refusing to pay the gas charging expenses and accept the refrigerator returned after repair.  Opposite party 1 and 3 who are well aware of the terms and conditions of the warranty  have unjustifiably demanded gas charging expenses, which they were not entitled to when a

                                                               (7)

defective compressor required replacement within the warranty  period.  Taking into consideration the circumstances involved,  which  would show that the refrigerator was under the use and enjoyment of the complainant for two years and two months when  complaints were made over its manufacturing defects, we have to assess what is the reasonable compensation that should be paid to the complainant by the opposite parties 1 to 3.  In the facts and circumstances of the case where it is established that an unjustifiable demand was made by the opposite parties overlooking the warranty conditions and that denied the complainant   enjoyment of  the product purchased for a long period of time, he should be adequately compensated.  The direction given by the lower forum for return of the repaired refrigerator to the complainant in working condition with liability to him to pay the repair charges is patently  erroneous.  However,  we have to look into the circumstance that he had use of the refrigerator at least for a period of 2 years from the date of purchase.  Taking into consideration all these aspects, we are of the view that the opposite parties have to pay to the complainant  compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the loss suffered by him on account of their deficiency in service.  Compensation as

                                                                   (8)

ordered above has to be paid within a period of 1 month from the date of this judgment, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of default till realization.  Appellant/complainant is also awarded cost of Rs.1000/- from the respondents 1 and 2. The old refrigerator retained at service centre  shall belong to the  manufacturer.

           Appeal is partly allowed as indicated.  

JUSTICE  S.S. SATHEESA CHANDRAN:PRESIDENT

V.V.JOSE                : MEMBER

Sh/-