IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of December, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member,
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 223/2019 (filed on 06/12/2019)
Petitioner : Jayachandran S.,
S/o K.M. Soman Nair,
Jaya Nivas,
Karukachal, Changanacherry, Kottayam.
(Adv.G. Jayasankar, Adv.C.J.Jose)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Bismi Connect,
Bismi Arcade,
Nagampadam, Kottayam
Represented its Branch Manager.
2) Boch Home Appliances, BSH Household
Appliance manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. Arena
House, IInd Floor, Road No.12 MIDC
Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093.
(Adv.Milad M.,
Adv.Seethal Susan Thomas)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief of the complainant is case is as follows:
The complainant purchased fridge make BOSCH BC 21820 # BOSCH REF 347 PLUM 4 star on 29.03.2016 from the first opposite party for a consideration of Rs.35,700/-. The fridge was delivered on 30.03.2019. During a short span of purchase the mother board of the fridge was not working properly. The complainant was informed to the opposite parties on 26.06.2019 a technician of the first opposite party inspected the fridge and reported that the control module inverter and flap was damaged. Again the same complaint was noticed and was not getting cooling effect. Another complaint was lodged with the opposite party, and demanded to replace the fridge. But the opposite party was not ready to give a replacement for the fridge, which was having manufacturing defect. Even though the defect was rectified by the technician of the opposite party once, the major complaint of the defective fridge persisted and aggravated. The complainant was not able to use the fridge for their daily use. The act of the opposite party was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The second opposite party appeared and filed their version.
As per the version of the second opposite party, the complaint of the complainant was registered and duly attended by the company’s customer service technician / engineer on 26.06.2016. The engineer inspected the fridge and the control module and flap menu were replaced on 03.07.2019. Again on 25.11.2019 the complainant registered a complaint. The company deputed the engineer to resolve the issue. After the inspection it was found that the control module and for motor were required to be replaced. However the customer objected to do the repair work and did not allow the engineer to repair the fridge. The complaints of the complainant were promptly attended and offered the complainant to replace the spare parts free of the cost as the fridge was in the warranty period. There is no manufacturing defect to the fridge. The manufacturing defect can only be established by a report of the appropriate laboratory. Under warranty of the product the opposite party is responsible to rectify the problems and not to replace the same. The opposite party always offered possible service to make the fridge function to its best capacity.
Opposite party No.1 failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. Opposite party No.1 was set ex-parte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A5. On going through the complaint, version of the second opposite party and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point No.1 and 2 together.
On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and version of the opposite party and evidence adduced, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a BOSCH BC 21820 REF 347 4 STAR from the first opposite party for a consideration of Rs.35,700.00 on 29.03.2019. Ext.A1is the bill dated 29.03.2019 issued by the first opposite party.
Ext.A2 is the job card dated 26.06.2019 which shows that the technician of the opposite party attended the complaint of the complainant and replaced the control module and flap of the fridge. Ext.A4 is the job card issued by the technician of the second opposite party on 26.11.2019. In Ext.A4 it is remarked that “customer not ready to repair the machine, customer want to replace the machine”. Ext.A5 is the copy of the e-mail communication between the complainant and opposite party No.2.
Section 2(1)(f) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 read as follows; S.2(1)(f) “defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or [under any contract, express or implied, or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
From the above findings it can be seen that the fridge become defective two times within a short span of seven to eight months from the date of purchase. Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite parties sold a defective fridge to the complainant. This act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service. Even though the complainant alleged manufacturing defect for the fridge, there is no expert opinion to establish that the fridge is having manufacturing defects.
We allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
- The second opposite party is directed to do the repair of the works of the fridge to a perfect working condition free of cost within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings with cost Rs.2,000/-
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order. If not complied as directed, the amounts will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of December, 2021.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 –Invoice issued by the opposite party amount of Rs.35,700/-
A2- Job card issued by the opposite party dated 26.06.2019
A3- Complaint filed by the petitioner
A4- Job card issued by opposite party dated 26.11.2019
A5- Gmail replay by the second opposite party dated 03.12.2019.
A6- Loan Transaction details between 11.05.19 to 18.12.19
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
