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
Tuesday the 31st day of January, 2023
C.C. 260/2016
Complainant
Gopalan.,
Kunnath Meethal House,
Iyyoth Meethal,
Mundoth, Koyilandy Taluk
Kozhikode.
Opposite Parties
- M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd.,
Appliances Division, 2nd Floor,
Angels Arcade, South Kalamassery,
Near Cusat Signal, Ernakulam – 682 022.
- BISMI APPLIANCES,
3/178 C., City Centre,
Vandipetta, Nadakkavu,
Kozhikode – 673 011.
(OP1 by Adv. Sri. Sabu John Mathew)
ORDER
By Smt. PRIYA. S. MEMBER.
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 complainant purchased a (EON 241P4.3 (FF 240L RUBY PETALS) Double Door refrigerator worth Rs. 20,700/- from the 2nd opposite party on 27/02/2016. The product was manufactured by the first opposite party. It was purchased for complainant’s daughter for starting a cool bar shop for her livelihood which was supposed to be inaugurated on 07/04/2016. Since inauguration of the shop was decided on 07/04/2016, the fridge was switched on the previous day. Since the fridge did not have adequate cooling, her business was interrupted. In order to manage the situation temporarily, the complainant brought the fridge which was being used at his home. The complainant contacted the second opposite party and a complaint was registered then and there. On the next day itself, the company’s technician came to the shop, examined the fridge. But he did not find any fault. Since there was no adequate cooling in the fridge, the complainant called the 2nd opposite party upon which another technician came, examined and found that there was fault with the compressor. After that, the company replaced the fridge. Eventhough the complainant used the fridge as per the instructions, there was no improvement in the cooling. Again the complaint was registered. Then the technician came and examined the fridge and found no fault. He also said that the problem might be due to fluctuation in voltage. Again a complaint was made, but in vain. The 2nd opposite party has neither taken back the fridge nor did refund the purchase price. Hence the complaint for refund of the price after taking back the fridge and also for compensation.
3. The first opposite party has filed version. The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
4. According to the 1st opposite party, on 07/04/2016 when the complaint occurred the complainant informed the 2nd opposite party. On the next day, the technician came and found out the defect of the compressor and replaced the fridge with a new one. Since evenafter that the problem repeated, it was detected by the technician that there was voltage problem in the cool bar shop. Though the technician had given an instruction to rectify the defect of voltage fluctuation the complainant did not take any steps. At the time of purchase the complainant was advised to purchase a deep freezer fridge since the use was in a cool bar shop. But the complainant did not do so. Deep freezer fridge is to be used in such shops and not fridge meant for domestic use. But the complainant was reluctant to purchase the same. The complaint is bereft of bonafides and is liable to be dismissed. The prayer of the 1st opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. 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.
6. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext A1 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the 1st opposite party.
7. Heard.
8. Point No 1 : The complainant purchased a (EON 241P4.3 (FF240L RUBY PETALS) Double Door Refrigerator worth Rs. 20,700/- from the 2nd opposite party on 27/02/2016. It was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The purchase is not disputed. It was purchased for being use in a cool bar. The grievance of the complainant is that the fridge is not having sufficient cooling. Even after replacement with a new one, the same defect continued. Hence the complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the price along with compensation from the opposite parties.
9. The complainant was examined as PW1, who has deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. The 1st opposite party has taken two fold contentions. The 1st contention is that there is voltage fluctuation in the shop. But this is not seen attended by the complainant. PW1 has admitted in the cross examination that he had not checked whether there was any voltage fluctuation. Hence the case of the second opposite party regarding voltage fluctuation cannot be ruled out. The second contention of the 1st opposite party is that the fridge in question is meant for domestic purpose and not for commercial use and that for commercial use a deep freezer fridge should be used. It is not disputed that the fridge in question which is used in the cool bar is an ordinary fridge used for domestic purpose and not a deep freezer fridge. By using a fridge meant for domestic use in the shop where the fridge is required to be opened and closed often, the complainant cannot blame the opposite parties stating lack of adequate cooling. PW1 has admitted that subsequently he has purchased a deep freezer fridge and it is working properly. This fact lends support to the contention of the 1st opposite party that a deep freezer fridge is the solution. Moreover, the complainant has failed to place on record any technical/expert report to show that the fridge is having any inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant is seeking refund of the price and the onus is on him to prove that it is having any inherent manufacturing defect. As such, the complainant failed to show that the fridge is having any manufacturing defect so as to entitle him to get refund of the price. Equally, the complainant has no case that there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties to attend the complaint as and when reported. That being the position, no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice can be attributed against the opposite parties.
10. To sum up , we hold that there is no proof of any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
11. Point No. 2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not eligible to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 31th day of January, 2023.
Date of Filing: 17/06/2016.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Receipt dated 27/02/2016
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Gopalan (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
