IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 06^thday of November, 2021

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 94/2021 (filed on 25-06-2021)

Petitioner                                     :       P. Kuruvilla Jacob,

                                                            Ottathycal House,

                                                            Market Road,

                                                            Chingavanam P.O.

                                                            Nattakom Village,

                                                            Kottayam – 686531

                                                                                Vs. 

Opposite Parties                           :  1) The Proprietor,

                                                            Pittappillil Agencies,

                                                            Pukadiyil Commercial Complex,

                                                            Nagampadam,

                                                            Kottayam – 686006.

                                                      2)   The Manager,

                                                            Prodigy,

                                                            Authorised Service Dealer for

Godrej Freezers, Edathumkalayil,

                                                            Puthanangady P.O.

                                                            Near Union Club Junction,

                                                            Kottayam – 686 001.

     3)  Jobu,

                                                            Freezer Technician,Prodigy,

                                                            Authorised Service Dealer for Godrej,

Edathumkalayil,

Puthanangady P.O.

                                                            Near Union Club Junction,

Kottayam – 686 001.

                                                  O  R  D  E  R

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member

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

The petitioner purchased one Godrej Freezer from first respondent on 29.04.19 asper invoice no KTYM F2SI 1218 dated 29.04.19 for a consideration of Rs.14,000/-with a warranty of 5years.In the middle of 2020 November the freezer was foundfaulty as there was no cooling inside and it was reported to the 1^strespondent on16.11.20 and accordingly a complaint was registered by the 1^st respondent.Thereafter the 3^rdrespondent came to the complainant’s house and examined thedefective freezer, which was on 18.11.20. He said the flow of freeon was suspectedto have blocked and advised to keep the freezer disconnected during the wholenight and to switch on only in the morning/ Even after that if the freezer indicatedthe same defect, the matter should be intimated to him and received Rs.200 as feefor inspection.

Even after doing so, the freezer indicated the same defect and so the complainantintimated the matter to the 2^ndand the 3^rdopposite parties several times. Only on26.11.2020 the 2^ndopposite party informed him that the freezer has to be filled withfresh Freon gas in order to remove the block and that he would send a technicianfor a fee of Rs.3500/-for the repair.

The complainant requested to give that in writing to the 2^nd opposite party but no reply wasreceived by him. On 10.12.20, the complainant personally met the 1^strespondent athis office rand requested to rectify the defect of the freezer and to settle the matterimmediately and informed about the illegal demand of the 2^ndand 3^rd opposite party for theservice charge but no action was taken. Hence the complainant sent a letteron 02.01.21 to the 1^strespondent requesting to replace the faulty freezer with aproper non defective freezer within 3 days from the date of receipt of the saidletter. But no reply was received yet. The 1^stand 2^ndopposite parties are legallybound to replace the defective freezer or rectify the defect without charging anyservice charge. The complaint is filed for the compensation for the damagessuffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service and unfair tradepractice from the part of the opposite party.

Though the opposite parties received the notice from this Commission, they didnot care to appear or file version before this commission and hence set exparte.

The complainant has adduced evidence through proof affidavit and exhibits A1 toA7.

On an examination of the facts and evidence, we frame the following issues:

1. Whether the complainant has established the unfair trade practice and

deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. If so what should be the relief?

Point No 1

The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a freezer from the 1^st oppositeparty of which the 2^ndopposite party is the authorised service centre and the 3^rdopposite party is the service person of the 2^ndopposite party.The freezer gotdefective in the month of November,2020 which is the warranty period . But onintimation the 2^ndopposite party sent the 3^rdopposite party to rectify the same anddemanded Rs.3500/- for the repair work and the 3^rd opposite party received Rs.200 for his visitwhich is against the warranty conditions.

The complainant has produced Exhibit A1 Copy of the Bill of the purchase of thefreezer, A2 copy of the receipt for the Rs.200/- given to the 3^rdand A7, Copy ofthe warranty card along with other documents. On perusal of the above documents,we find that the allegations put forward by the complainant are genuine. There isno reply from the 1^stor 2^ndopposite party to the complaints given by thecomplainant to them regarding the defect. The complainant alleges that the 2^ndopposite party informed him that he needed to pay Rs.3500/- for the requiredservice.

The complainant’s grievance is that the opposite parties are committing unfairtrade practice by saying denying his right as a consumer to get the warranty

benefits. As per Exhibit A7, the freezer has a warranty of five years on compressorand a one year warranty on the appliance from the date of purchase againstdefective material or workmanship.

“ thegodrej chest freezer comes with a FIVE year warranty on COMPRESSOR  and a ONE year warranty on the appliance from the date of purchase, against defective material or workmanship.  In case of any such defect found during the first year from date of purchase, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd – Appliance Division will undertake repairs to the warranted part free of charge, subject to the terms and conditions below.  In the warranty period beyond the first year from the date of purchase, only the compressor will be provided free of cost.  However the appliance will be repaired on payment of necessary charges”

Opposite party 3 after visiting the complainant’s house for inspecting the freezerhad found that the defect is that the blocking in the flow of Freon gas. The

complainant did as per the advice of opposite party 3 but there was no result. We understandthat the blocking of the Freon gas means it will affect the compressor and make itdefective. So the complaint is related to the defect of the compressor and in theabsence of contrary evidence, it is seen that the said defect caused the freezer non-functioning. The said defect definitely comes under the coverage of the warrantyconditions and we see that the 1^stand2^ndopposite parties are liable to compensatethe complainant as the evasion of providing free service during the warranty periodis a deficiency in service and demanding service charge in the warranty period alsois an unfair trade practice which is to be compensated.

Point No. 2

The complainant alleges that the 2^ndopposite party asked him to make Rs.3500/-ready at the time of service .But in order to support this allegation the complainanthas not produced any evidence.

As the opposite parties have not turned up to adduce any contrary evidence or theirversion and so we are of the considered opinion that there is definite deficiency ofservice and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party Hence thecomplaint is allowed as follows:

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to repair the defective nonfunctioning Godrej freezer of the petitioner free of cost or in alternate the 1^st opposite isdirected to supply a new non defective Godrej freezer of the same type mentionedin the Invoice dated 29.04.2019 to the petitioner in default of which an interest @9% pa shall be given from the date filing of the complaint ie 30.4.2021.
2. The 2^ndopposite party is directed to pay Rs.7000 as compensation to thecomplainant in default an interest @9% p.a. shall be given from the date of order till realization

3. Rs.2000 is to be paid by the 1^stand 2^ndopposite parties towards litigation cost.

          The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. 

        Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 06^th day of November, 2021

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member                 Sd/-

Sri. Manulal V.S. President               Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                   Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.

A1 –Copy of invoice No.KTYM-F2SI1218 dtd.29-04-19

A2 – Copy of Field repair cash receipt dtd.18-11-20

A3- Copy of complaint dtd.30-11-20 by complainant to 1^st opposite party

A4- Copy of letter dtd.10-12-20 by complainant to 1^st opposite party

A5 – Copy of complaint dtd.02-01-21 by complainant to 1^st opposite party

A6 –Copy of postal receipt

A7 – Copy of warranty card

Documents of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                                    By Order

                                                                                         Senior Superintendent