DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 10.10.2023.
CC/273/2023
Narayanan.P.C, - Complainant
S/o.(late) Sankaran Ezhuthassan,
Rugmani Sadanam,
KUttippulli, Kadukkam Kunnam,
Palakkad-678 651.
(party-in-person)
VS
1. M/s.Kochukudiyil Agencies, -Opposite Party
A & P Complex, Stadium by pass Road,
Palakkad-678 001.
2. M/s. Kochukudiyil Agencies,
Calicut Road, Perinthalmanna,
Malappuram-679 322.
3. M/s.Tek Care India Pvt. Ltd,
15 km stone, Aurangabad,
Paithan Road, Village Chitegon,
Taluk Paithan, Arurangabad-431 105.
(All OPs-ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
1. The complaint pertains to the defect of a Kelvinator brand refrigerator purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party for Rs.10,593/- on 06.04.2023 along with a V-Guard stabilizer.
2. The above product was having one year warranty on all parts and four year additional warranty for the compressor.
3. After one month of purchase, the refrigerator started giving heavy sound at the time of cut-off.
4. The 1st opposite party did not respondent to the complaints made by the complainant for rectifying the above defect.
5. Hence, the complainant sought the assistance of other agencies dealing in the same brand of refrigerator. Their technicians informed the complainant that the refrigerator purchased is an old model and its spare parts are not available now in the market.
6. The fridge is now kept idle in the complaint’s house as it is not giving proper cooling apart from giving heavy sound and vibrations while working.
7. The year of manufacturing of the fridge is shown as 2014 in the “power saving guide” affixed on the fridge. Further, the 1st opposite party has closed their show room at Palakkad.
8. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking replacement of the fridge or refund of original cost apart from a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and court expenses.
2. The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notices to all opposite parties got returned. Hence, notices were sent to them through E-mail. But none of the opposite parties entered appearance nor filed version. Hence, their names were called in open court and were set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A4 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice of the fridge and accessories purchased, Ext.A2 is the copy of the warranty card, Ext.A3 is the photo of the “power saving guide” affixed on the fridge, and Ext.A4 is the copy of the news paper report on the explosion of fridge in Jalandhar.
4. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice issued by the 1st opposite party for the purchase of the fridge by the complainant for Rs.14,500/-. Ext.A2 is the copy of warranty clearly showing that the product is having 1 year warranty for all the parts and additionally four year warranty for the compressor. Ext.A3 clearly shows that the year of manufacturing as 2014.
5. In the absence of any counter pleadings of the opposite parties, the following conclusion can be shown from the proof affidavit and documents marked from the side of the complainant.
1) The opposite party sold an outdated model fridge manufactured in 2014 to the complainant.
2) The opposite parties failed to attend to the complaint of the fridge even though the fridge is under warranty.
3) As the model is outdated and the spare is not available in the market, the complainant is not in a position to rectify the defect by engaging other technicians.
4) The fridge is kept idle in the house of the complainant as it is making unusual sound and vibration.
6. Selling an outdated model of fridge to the complainant and not attending to its defects even during the warranty period tantamount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Therefore, the complaint is allowed and the following reliefs are ordered.
1) The complainant is entitled to get refund of the original cost of fridge Rs.10,593/22 along with interest @ 10% pa from 06.04.2023 till the date of payment from the 1st and the 2nd opposite party. As the shop of the 1st opposite party is closed, replacement of fridge is not ordered.
2) The 1st and the 2nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3) The 1st and the 2nd opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite parties may take back the fridge from the residence of the complaint after complying with the order.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 21st day of June, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Invoice bill dated 06.04.2023 issued by Kochukudiyil agencies.
Ext.A2: Guarantee card.
Ext.A3: Coy of the star rating.
Ext.A4: Paper publication dated 10.10.2023.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 5,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
