Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/260/2023

NOUSHAD MUTHUVATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BLUE MART HOME APPLIANCES - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2024

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KARANTHUR PO,KOZHIKODE
 
Complaint Case No. CC/260/2023
( Date of Filing : 26 Jun 2023 )
 
1. NOUSHAD MUTHUVATH
MUTHUVATH HOUSE,ERAMANGALAM P.O,BALUSSERY,KOZHIKODE-673612
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BLUE MART HOME APPLIANCES
NEAR JUMA MASJID,VATTOLI P.O,ARAPPEEDIKA,BALUSSERY,KOZHIKODE-673612
2. VEE GEE SMART CARE
5/2079-E,DEVI BUILDING,KOTTARAM ROAD,ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE-673006
3. HAIER APPLIANCES INDIA PVT LTD
OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,KACHERIPADY,KOCHI-682018
4. HAIER SERVICE CENTRE
7Q9J W7F,OTTILAYIL PARAMBA,JAWAHAR NAGAR COLONY,JAWAHAR NAGAR,ASHOKAPURAM,ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE-673006
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. P.C .PAULACHEN , M.Com, LLB PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. PRIYA . S , BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 May 2024
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Friday the 31th day of May 2024

CC.260/2023­

 

 

Complainant

Noushad Muthuvath,

S/o. Moideen Koya,

Muthuvath (HO),

Eramangalam. P.O,

Balussery (Via),

Kozhikode - 673612

Opposite Parties

  1.              Blue Mart Home Appliances,

Near Juma Masjid,

Vattoli. P.O, Arappeedika,

Balussery, Kozhikode – 673612

  1.              Vee Gee Mart Care,

5/2079-E, Devi Building,

Kottaram Road, Eranhipalam,

Kozhikode – 673006

  1.              Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd,

Old Railway Station Road,

Kacheripady, Kochi – 682018

  1.              Haier Service Centre 7Q9J+W7F,

Ottilayil Paramba, Jawahar Nagar Colony,

Jawahar Nagar, Ashokapuram,

Eranhipalam, Kozhikode - 673006

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT              

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

  1.   On 27/04/2019  the complainant purchased a HAIER A/C SPLIT 1.5 TON 3*INV HS/HU 18NMW3A from the shop of the first opposite party paying Rs. 42,000/-.  The A/C was manufactured by the third opposite party. It was assured by the first opposite party at the time of purchase that compressor warranty was   12 years and split warranty 5 years.
  2. After 1 ½ years, it was found that the cooling was very low.   On reporting the complaint to the first opposite party, the technician of the second opposite party came on 07/01/2021  and repaired the A/c after collecting Rs. 590/- as service charge. But after 8 months, the same issue repeated and even though he had intimated the first opposite party, there was no response. After some days, the A/c ceased working. The complainant was in continuous touch with the first opposite party and then a technician of the second opposite party came and repaired the A/c and collected  Rs. 1,000/- as service charge without issuing any bill. But even after that, the issue was not solved and his repeated complaint to the first opposite party had fallen on deaf ears.
  3. After 6 months, a technician of the 4th opposite party came and inspected the A/c and stated that the compressor board was not working and that the same needed   replacement and he  promised to replace the compressor board later. But there was no response thereafter. On 06/04/2023 the complainant reported the complaint to the third opposite party, pursuant to which, a technician came and inspected the A/c and repeated that the compressor board had to be replaced for which   order had to be replaced for getting the same from Mumbai . He collected Rs. 590/- from the complainant without issuing any bill. But nobody turned up thereafter. The A/c was in a dismantled condition. His repeated requests to repair the A/c proved futile. On 07/04/2023 a technician came and replaced the compressor board. But even thereafter the A/c was not working properly. The technician advised to do rewiring. But even after that the issue was not solved. Later a technician of the 4th opposite party came and attended the TV. But it was not working and he expressed his helplessness. Another technician of the 4th opposite party came and after examining the A/c stated that the split board was not working and it had to be replaced. Even though the split board was replaced, the A/c was not working. In the meanwhile, the complainant was forced to purchase and fit another A/c of Panasonic company.
  4.   The act of the opposite party in supplying a defective A/c   and their further inaction to address his concerns over the product amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the A/C and the service charges collected from him and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of the proceedings.
  5. The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
  6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
  1. Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
  2. Reliefs and costs.
  1. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 were marked.
  2. Heard.
  3. Point No.1:-     The complainant has approached this Commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The allegation is that the A/c sold to him was a defective one and there was gross neglect on the part of the opposite parties to address his concerns over the product. He is seeking refund of the price and the service charges and also compensation from the opposite parties.   
  4. PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the invoice date 27/04/2019, Ext A2 is the temporary receipt dated 07/01/2021,  Ext A3 is the copy of the photo and Ext A4 is the copy of the cash bill dated 26/05/2023.  
  5. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file written version and contest the matter.  The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4. Unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties stand proved.
  6. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the A/c amounting to Rs. 42,000/-. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite parties 1 and 3 have resulted in gross mental agony and hardship to the complainant, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately by them. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3,500/- as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties 1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable. 
  7. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                  a)  CC.260/2023 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite parties 1 and 3 are hereby directed to refund the price of the A/c amounting to  Rs. 42,000/- (Rupees forty two thousand only) to the complainant, after taking back the A/c .

c)  The opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered.

d) The opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

e)  The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 42,000/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the  31st  day of  May,  2024.

Date of Filing:  26.06.2023

 

 

                                                          Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                 PRESIDENT                                                                             MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Invoice date 27/04/2019.

Ext.A2 – Temporary receipt dated 07/01/2021.

Ext.A3 – Copy of the photo.

Ext.A4 – Copy of the cash bill dated 26/05/2023. 

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Noushad Muthuvath (Complainant)

 

 

                                                        Sd/-                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                 PRESIDENT                                                                                 MEMBER

 

 

 

True Copy,      

 

 

                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                 Assistant Registrar.      

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. P.C .PAULACHEN , M.Com, LLB]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PRIYA . S , BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM)]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.