SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction against opposite parties to give a new refrigerator and also pay compensation to the complainant.
Complaint in brief
On 18/08/2022, complainant purchased a refrigerator worth Rs.14,100/- which was manufactured by OP No.1 from the OP No.2 who is the dealer of OP No.1. But, before completing one year of the purchase, the painted portion near to the freezer peeled off as layers from the side of freezer. This was intimated to OP No.2 and the help desk of OP No.1 and it was intimated that service technician will inspect the product. But, to the dismay on 12/07/2023 the whirlpool care manager told that the service technician rectified the defect and complaint registered was closed. Without rectifying the defect, OPs practiced deficiency in service lead to mental agony and hardship and hence this complaint.
After filing this complaint, commission has send notice to both OPs and OP1entered appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly. OP2 not appeared before the commission and not filed any version. So the OP No.2 has no version as such in this case came to be proceed against OP No.2 set ex-parte.
Version in brief
The OP 1denied entire averment except those specifically admitted. The contention of peeling off the paint on the top of refrigerator caused due to the overheat from stabilizer and which was placed on the top of the refrigerator. The technician visited complainant’s house made it clear to complainant. The OP No.1 contents that they undergo stringent quality and performance checks before the actual commerce of the products status. The OP never violated any warranty terms and conditions. Moreover, the technician made an estimate of repainting the refrigerator but complainant refused the same. The OP 1 never practiced any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to case the issues accordingly.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
- Compensation and cost?
In order to answer the issues, the Commission called for the evidence from both parties. Due to the age old ailment complainant entrusted his son-in-law to adduced evidence on behalf of him. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1. OP 1 has no oral as well as documentary evidence. The complainant produced documents, which was marked as Ext.A1 and A7. A1 is the tax invoice issued by OP No.2 dated 18/08/2022, A2 is the warranty terms and conditions, Ext.A3 e-mail sent complainant to OP No.1 dated 07/07/2023. A4 is the reply of e-mail issued by OP 1 to complainant dated 12/07/2023, A5 is the e-mail sent by complainant to OP1 dated 12/07/2023. A6 is the comprehensive warranty message of refrigerator and Ext.A7 is the photos marked to subject to proof.
Both issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience. Let us have a clear glance into the documents produced by the parties to the case in order to answer the issues raised. Ext.A1 speaks about the purchase of product in-issue, which there is no dispute and hence no detailed discussion is necessary as far as it is concerned. Ext.A2, which is the warranty certificate issued by OP No.1 indicate that 1 year comprehensive warranty from the date of purchase. On the perusal of Ext.A3 and A4, the commission understands, that on 07/07/2023, the complainant raised a complaint on the portal of whirlpool help desk regarding the issue faced by complainant and Ext.A4 dated 12/07/2023, care manager service operations support, emailed to complainant that a service provider rectified the issue faced by complainant. It is pertinent to the commission that after perusing Ext.A1, Ext.A3 and A4 the complaint made within the warranty period and hence the defects arise during the warranty period. Moreover, on the very same day of Ext.A5, complainant replied to OP 1 that no such technician visited neither the defect rectified. Ext.A7 shows the present condition of product in issue. Furthermore, it is seen in Ext.A2 that OP 1 provided comprehensive warranty which the covers all the defects arising during the warranty period. Here most of the averments made by complainant goes in tune with his Ext.5 and OP No.1 not produced any proof to contend that the defect was not rectified by the technician neither produced the estimate to cure the defect as claimed in the version. Hence the commission came into a conclusion that the OPs are liable to deficiency in service and also liable to compensate as they are not provided their service in proper.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. Both opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of refrigerator of free of cost within one month from the date of this order, otherwise opposite parties are directed to pay purchase price of refrigerator Rs.14,100/- as per Ext.A1 and also pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant. After paying the amount the opposite parties are liberty to take back the refrigerator from complainant. Opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing which, complainant is at liberty to execute the order against opposite parties 1 and 2 as per provision in Consumer Protection act 2019.
Exts.
A1-Tax invoice
A2-Warranty certificate
A3 to A5–Copy of e-mail
A6- Comprehensive warranty message
A7-Copy of photos
Pw1- Complainant (Authorized person )
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
