BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 06/09/2012

Date of Order : 10/12/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

 

C.C. No. 541/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

1. The facts leading to this complaint are as follows :-

The complainant purchased a new refrigerator manufactured by the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party for Rs. 14,500/- on 16-05-2010. The purchase was in exchange of an old refrigerator of Godrej company the value of which was fixed at Rs. 5,075.99 and the said amount was deducted towards discount from the original cost of the new refrigerator and the model No. of the new refrigerator was “WHIRLPOOL 250 MM 26 DLX TITANIUM’. The benefit of a 5 years warranty was also offered of which the 1^st one year warranty was comprehensive warranty. A four year warranty on the compressor alone was also offered. The case of the complainant is that the freezer and compressor were found defective during the warranty period and were replaced free of cost during the warranty period, that the replacement of main parts such as compressor and freezer during the warranty period goes to show that the refrigerator was suffering from severe manufacturing defects, therefore the complainant sought for full compensation of the cost of the refrigerator purchased. He also sought for compensation for the value of the old refrigerator exchanged, for the cost of food materials perished, for the expenditure incurred for engaging a cook on daily wages for 30 days, for the mental agony suffered and for the costs of the proceedings.

2. In the version filed by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties, it is stated that in fact the complainant had enjoyed the product purchased after the expiry of the warranty period without any major complaints, that the one and only complaint with regard to the refrigerator was reported on 14-08-2012 and on the very next day the service officials of the opposite parties visited the residence of the complainant and on a detailed check up they found that the compressor and freezer had to be replaced and the refrigerator was taken to the service centre on 17-08-2012 and the defects were rectified by replacing the compressor and the freezer as per the terms of warranty. The refrigerator was returned after verifying that the refrigerator was working normally. But the complainant was reluctant to receive the refrigerator or to pay the invoice amount of Rs. 2,830/- towards the cost of the replaced freezer unit, gas charging, service charge etc. No cost was charged for the replacement of the compressor. The complainant also alleged that the small dent on the door of the refrigerator was caused due to rough handling by the opposite parties on its return. In the circumstances, the refrigerator was taken back to the service centre. The opposite parties stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator as alleged by the complainant, that the opposite parties are not responsible for the external damages caused to the refrigerator when the same was in the possession of the complainant, that there is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3. Notice of the 2^nd opposite party has not been completed. No oral evidence was adduuced by the complainant Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Senior Executive of the service centre of the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and counsel for the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties.

4. The main points to be decided in this case are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the new refrigerator purchased and of the old refrigerator exchanged or not?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the good materials perished or not?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the expenditure incurred for engaging a cook on daily wages for 30 days or not?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered?

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the costs of the litigation or not?

5. Point No. i. :- The main contention of the complainant is that the replacement of compressor, freezer, door etc. during the warranty period shows that the refrigerator purchased from the 2^nd opposite party suffer from severe manufacturing defects. Therefore, he is entitled for full compensation of the cost of the refrigerator purchased. It is seen that the complainant purchased the new refrigerator from the 2^nd opposite party in exchange of an old refrigerator on 16-05-2010. The one year comprehensive warranty terminated on 16-05-2011 as per which the refrigerator and all parts thereof (except the light bulb, crisper glass and add-on plastic parts) to be replaced free of cost. The complainant alleged that during the one year warranty period ended on 16-05-2011, he had registered 3 complaints ie. on 13-06-2010, 06-09-2010 and 09-04-2011. The opposite party on the other hand stated in their version that the one and only complaint received by them was on 14-08-2012 ie. after 16-05-2011. The complainant produced no evidence to show that he had registered complaints during the one year warranty period. The 1^st opposite party had taken much pain to convey the terms and conditions of warranty in the warranty card, but nowhere in the warranty card the toll free number to be contacted to register complaints, if any, is mentioned. In cross-examination, the opposite party could not show any valid reason for not disclosing the branch office of the 1^st opposite party in the Ernakulam District. The contention of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties that the one and only complaint received was on 14-08-2012 after the one year comprehensive warranty period is accepted only in view of the fact that the complainant could not produce any valid evidence to show that he had made complaints on 13-06-2010, 06-10-2010 and 09-04-2011. The product problem is shown as “Bottom Rust-low cool” in Ext. A3 is the service request dated 14-08-2012. Subsequently, on thorough verification, it was found that the compressor and the freezer unit were also defective and they were replaced and invoice dated 21-08-2012 was raised vide Ext. A4 demanding Rs. 2,830/-.

6. It is seen that the compressor was replaced free of cost and the other items replaced and charged related to freezer unit (Rs. 1,100/-), gas charging (Rs. 1,200/-), service charges (Rs. 230/-). Freso Recin (Rs. 160/-) and diar (Rs. 90). Since the replacement made and charges raised are after the comprehensive warranty period, the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2,830/-. In the circumstances, the 1^st point is decided against the complainant ie. the complainant is not entitled to get the cost of the new refrigerator purchased or to get the cost of old refrigerator exchanged.

7. Point Nos. ii. and iii. :- The complainant claimed cost of food materials perished due to low cool of the refrigerator. No evidence produced before this Forum to prove the claim. Further, we find that the loss sustained to the complainant is not proved and it is an indirect loss also. Therefore, the claim of the complainant towards cost of food materials perished is therefore disallowed. The claim of the complainant for the loss occurred by engaging a cook on daily wages is also disallowed, since the claim is not supported by evidence. This claim also is found an indirect loss hence disallowed. We find that the complainant is not entitled to the above claim.

8. Point No. iv. :- The fourth point to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony or harassment suffered. The complainant could not prove any mental agony or harassment from the circumstances of the case. Therefore, this point is decided against the complainant.

9. Point No. v. :- The complainant sought for the costs of the proceedings in this case. We are not inclined to award any costs to either party, since the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant award of any costs of the proceedings. This paint is also decided against the complainant.

10. We find that the opposite parties are obliged to return the refrigerator after replacement of the defective parts and the complainant is to pay the amount shown in the invoice-cum-receipt No. 17569 dated 21-08-2012. The opposite parties shall confirm the working condition of the repaired refrigerator at the time of delivering the machine to the complainant.

11. In the result, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows :-

1. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties shall deliver the repaired refrigerator to the complainant in working condition and the complainant shall pay Rs. 2,830/- as stated in the invoice-cum-receipt No. 17569 dated 21-08-2012 simultaneously, so as to set the matters in a right position.

2. The opposite parties shall also allow one year warranty for the replaced parts of the refrigerator from the date of delivery of the refrigerator to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of December 2013.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant’s Exhibits :-

Opposite party’s Exhibits :: Nil

=========