DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 30th day of December, 2022
C.C. 169/2019
Complainant
Anoop . K,
S/o Murali. K,
Krishnakripa House,
Eranchambalath, Palakottuvayal,
Kottaparamba P.O, Kozhikode – 08.
(By Adv. Sri. Farsaan Latheef)
Opposite Parties
- M/s Kannankandy Sales Corporation,
Mavoor Road, Kozhikode – 673004.
(By Adv. Smt. Sujatha. K. N)
- M/s M.M Home Care,
Authorised Service Centre of Electolex,
ML Group Building, Near MIMS Hospital, Mini Bypass Road,
Kommeri P.O, Kozhikode – 673007.
- M/s PE Electronics (Electrolex),
Auto car compound, Adalath Road,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra – 431005.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The third opposite party is the manufacturer, the first opposite party is the authorised dealer and the second opposite party is the authorised service centre of Electrolux RF EB204 single door refrigerator. Lured by the assurances given by the Sales Executive of the first opposite party about the superior quality and longevity and about the 5 years warranty, the complainant on 08/04/2015 purchased one Electrolux RF EB204 single door refrigerator from the first opposite party.
3. The initial warranty covered up to 07/04/2016 and additional warranty extended to the compressor and related parts commenced from 08/04/2016 up to 07/04/2020.
4. The refrigerator ceased working from 04/07/2018 onwards and by 06/07/2018, the complainant managed to obtain the telephone number of the second opposite party and contacted them. But the second opposite party delayed attending the service concern of the complainant. Though it was assured that the technician would attend the complaint on 07/07/2018, nobody turned up. After repeated calls and enquiry, the second opposite party registered a service request and sent a technician, who after inspecting the refrigerator, confirmed that the compressor ceased working. He charged Rs. 200/- as service charges and also demanded Rs. 2,650/- for the repairs as advance. After repeated complaints and enquiries with the second and third opposite parties, the technician came with a compressor and installed the same and demanded Rs. 3,000/-. The complainant objected as he claimed free service under the warranty. However, in order to avoid an unpleasant scene at the house, the complainant paid the amount. The complaints raised to the third opposite party via emails were not attended. The need for re-filling gas arose only because the compressor ceased to work within the warranty period.
5. Again on 26/12/2018 the refrigerator ceased working and the second opposite party was reluctant to take service request. The act of the opposite parties in not providing service within the assured time and the act of making false promises and selling substandard equipment and collecting hidden charges amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint for return of the amount of Rs. 3,200/- illegally collected from him by the second opposite party and to replace the compressor and carry out the repair works free of cost or to take back the refrigerator and refund the price of the product along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant. It is also prayed to impose fine as punitive damages on account of unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.
6. The second and third opposite parties were set ex-parte. The first opposite party did not file version within the stipulated time and the version filed subsequently was not accepted and was set ex-parte.
7. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
8. The complainant filed affidavit. Exts A1 to A5 were marked.
9. Heard.
10. Point No.1 : The complainant is alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
11. The complainant has filed affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the invoice dated 08/05/2015 which proves that the complainant purchased an Electrolux RF EB204 refrigerator from the first opposite party for Rs. 13,000/-. Ext A2 is the instruction manual which contains warranty details. Ext A2 shows that the initial warranty is for a period of 12 months and additional warranty is for 48 months on compressors subject to the conditions. Ext A3 is the screenshot copy of SMS sent by the third opposite party to the complainant. Ext A4 is the receipt issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. Ext A5 series are downloaded copies of email communications between the complainant and the third opposite party. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties were set ex-parte and they 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. The complainant’s case that there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties in providing prompt service stands proved through affidavit and the documents produced by the complainant.
12. But the allegation that a substandard product was sold to him is not supported by any evidence. The burden is upon the complainant to prove that the product is suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant has failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the refrigerator has any manufacturing defect or that it is a substandard equipment. In the absence of any such evidence, the prayer for refund of the price after taking back the refrigerator cannot be allowed.
13. The complainant has a case that a sum of Rs. 3,200/- was illegally collected by the second opposite party at the time of repairs and has sought for refund of the same. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at Ext A2. The warranty conditions clearly state that the additional warranty will only include repair / replacement of the compressor, free of charge and all other charges including inspection charge, gas charging, transportation charges, cost of drier and all other component, if any, will have to be borne by the customer. Therefore the levying of inspection charges and charges for gas filling cannot be said to be illegal. So the prayer for refund of the charges cannot be allowed.
14. As we have already stated, there was deficient service on the part of the opposite parties. There was delay in attending the first complaint and the second complaint was not attended to. It amounts to gross deficiency of service. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to mental agony and inconvenience due to the irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite parties. The complaints arose during the additional warranty period and the opposite parties are bound to attend the complaint and carry out the repair work under warranty. The complainant was not able to use and enjoy the refrigerator from 04/07/2018 to 08/08/2018 and from 26/12/2018 till date. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as cost of the proceedings.
15. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC 169/2019 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to carry out the repair works of the refrigerator under the additional warranty and make it in a sound working condition.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
d) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of December, 2022.
Date of Filing: 20/05/2019.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Invoice dated 08/05/2015.
Ext. A2 – Instruction manual.
Ext. A3 – Screenshot copy of SMS sent by the opposite party.
Ext. A4 – Receipt issued by the second opposite party.
Ext. A5 series – Downloaded copies of the email communications.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil
Witnesses for the Complainant
Nil.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
