PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of June 2012
Filed on : 07/01/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 10/2012
Between
Josh Tom (Minor), : Complainant
Rep. by Mother & natural (By Adv. Tom Jose, ‘Neethie’
guardian Mini Tom, Opp. High Court of Kerala,
W/o. Late Tom K. Jose, Infant Jesus Building, Ernakulam,
Tom Villa, Near Assisi Kochi-31)
Shanti Kendram, Karukutty,
Angamaly, Ernakulam-683 576.
And
1. Whirlpool of India Ltd. : Opposite parties
Rep. by Mr. Shanthanu (party- in- person)
Das Gupta, Vice President,
Marketing Whirl Pool House,
Plot No. 40, Sector-44,
Gurgoan-122 002., Haryana.
2. The Director,
M/s. Pittappillil Agencies, (2nd O.P. absent)
Digi Park, Toll Junction,
Edapally, Kochi.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a refrigerator from the 2nd opposite party on 21-12-2009 at a price of Rs. 19,877/-. Five years warranty is provided by the 1st opposite party manufacturer from the date of purchase. In October 2010 the machine became defunct. On repeated requests the 2nd opposite party deputed a service engineer. He opined that electronic components of the refrigerator are to be replaced. The complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to replace the machine itself with another one. At the instance of the 2nd opposite party the complainant was compelled to replace the electronic equipment at her own expenses. However the same problem was repeated. On 17-10-2011 the technician of the 2nd opposite party took the machine to the service centre for repairs and they demanded Rs. 2,500/- towards labour charges and transporting charges. However the opposite parties failed to disclose the nature of repairs to the complainant. On 25-10-2011 the complainant caused a letter to the 2nd opposite party. Since there was no response, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to which as well there was no response. Aggrieved by the above conduct of the opposite parties the complainant opted to file this complaint seeking direction against the opposite pries to refund the price of the refrigerator or to get the defective refrigerator replaced together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party.
The 1st opposite party admits the sale of the refrigerator to the complainant on 21-12-2009. The refrigerator was having a warranty for one year and the compressor alone was having a warranty for 5 years. The complaints reported by the complainant were duly attended to and rectified . Since the 2nd repair was beyond the warranty period the opposite party demanded Rs. 1,500/- towards service charges. The complainant was not willing to pay the amount. There is no manufacturing defect in the machine supplied to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3. Though the 2nd opposite party received notice from this forum they remained absent for their own reasons. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on her side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the 1st opposite party. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 1st opposite party.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price
of the machine or to get the machine replaced with a new
one ?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation
and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.?
5. Points Nos. i& ii. Admittedly on 21-12-2009 the complainant purchased a refrigerator at a price of Rs. 19,877/- from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the first opposite party evidenced by Ext. A1 receipt. According to the complainant five years warranty has been provided by the 1st opposite party for the machine. Ext. A2 warranty goes to show that one year comprehensive warranty for the machine alone and four years additional warranty on the compressor has been provided by the 1st opposite party. Undisputably, the 1st complaint of the machine had occurred within the warranty period and the 2nd opposite party duly rectified the same. According to the opposite parties since the 2nd complaint was after the normal warranty period the 2nd opposite party demanded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards service charges. Though the complainant contended that even during the warranty period the opposite parties collected service charges from the complainant, nothing is on record to prove the same. In October 2011 the opposite parties took the machine for repairs to their service centre and even now the same is in their possession. Since even after repairs the charges have not been paid only since.
6. During evidence the complainant deposed that her apprehension is that the defect of the machine would be repeated uncorroborated. We are not to agree with the contention of the complainant for the simple reason that the liability of the 1st opposite party to replace the machine is limited as per the warranty condition. However there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in intimating the complainant regarding the nature of the defect and the amount for the rectification of the same no evidence to the contrary. The primary right of the complainant to have been informed of the nature of defect of the machine had not been intimated to her but instead only a cost has been demanded at this stage. The rule of law that intends that consumer is the king has been vitiated in this case. This calls for remedies. We are of the firm opinion that an order to the opposite parties to return the machine in their custody at their cost to the complainant with an extended warranty of 6 months would meet the ends of justice. No orders as to costs or compensation are called for hence. Ordered accordingly.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally redeliver the
disputed machine to the complainant at their cost in perfect
working condition?
ii. The first opposite party shall extend the warranty of the
machine for a period of 6 months from the date of delivery
and put the undertaking in black and white failing which the
complainant is at liberty to approach this Forum for costs
and compensation.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Bill dt. 21-12-2009
A2 : brochure
A3 : copy of letter dt. 25-10-2011
A4 : Postal receipt
A5 : A.D. card
A6 : Lawyer notice dt. 17/11/2011
A7 : Postal receipt
A8 series : 2 A.D. cards
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : Mini Tom
