SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

    This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  for an order directing  the OP’s to pay Rs.14,900/-  to the complainant as the value of the fridge and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the  complainant  for the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s.

The brief of the complaint :

   The complainant had purchased a Godrej fridge from 1^st OP on 16/5/2018 for an amount of Rs.14,900/-.  The original price of the fridge was Rs.18,400/- and the 1^st OP made a discount of Rs.3,500/-.  At the time of purchasing the fridge  the 1^st OP told that this fridge is of  5 star category and showed a  sticker pasted on the fridge showing “5 star”. But on 21/12/2020  the complainant came to know that the  fridge is of  2 star category.  The 1^st OP had affixed a forged sticker on the fridge with an intention to misrepresent the complainant that the fridge is of 5 star categories.  So there is unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  The price of 2 star Godrej  fridge will come to Rs.8,900/- only in 2018.  The 1^st OP had  obtained a higher amount than the actual price of the goods from the complainant.  The fridge given is of  inferior quality than expected.  Then the complainant made repeated complaint to OPs 1&2 and  local police station also.  Since there is no redressal to the complainant’s grievances.  On 15/02/2021 the complainant send a lawyer notice to both OP’s.  Both OP’s received the notice and  1^st OP had sent a reply stating  false allegation.  So the act of  OP’s,  the complainant caused much mental agony, stress and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.  Hence the complaint.

       After filing this complaint notice issued to both OP’s.  Then the Ops entered before the commission  and filed their written version .The 1^st OP contended that at the alleged  sale of fridge is on 16/5/2018 and the complaint is filed  on 20/11/2021.  The complaint is time barred and hit by limitation of  2 years as contemplated in Sec.69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The complainant can never choose the cause of action on 21/12/2020 stating  as the date of knowledge and  on 15//2/2021 the date of  lawyer notice for filing the complaint.  1^st OP also submits that it is not mentioned in the bill anywhere that the fridge sold to the complainant is of 5 star category.  The price of the fridge during 2018 is  of different types and complainant cannot state that during the year 2018 the price of fridge is Rs. 8,900/- only.  There were several fridges available in the market during 2018 which cost more than Rs.20,000/-.  This complainant used the fridge for more than  3 years, but there was no mechanical or electrical complaint occurred so far.  It is the duty of the  buyer to verify all the specifications and conditions of the goods before purchasing the same and after satisfaction  the buyer purchasing the same fixing the price.  So the complainant is filed this complaint with ulterior motive raising false allegations  and the complaint is dismissed with compensatory  cost of this 1^st OP. 

     2^nd OP contended that there is no dealership agreement between 1^st OP dealer and this OP the manufacturer.  The relationship between M/s Venus distributors and the 1^st OP was on a principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis.  This OP has no control over the pricing of the goods by the dealers except that the maximum retail price is printed on the carton so that the dealer cannot sell the goods beyond MRP.  So the manufacturer is not liable for the acts and omissions of the dealer.  So the complaint may be dismissed against this 2^nd OP.

        On the basis  of the rival contentions by the pleadings the  following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts. A1 to A5 were marked .On OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence.

Issue No.1 to 3 taken together:   

     The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version. He was cross examined as PW1 by OP’s . According to the complainant  Exts.A1 to  A5 were marked on his  part  to substantiate his case also.  In Ext.A1 is the  cash bill dtd.16/5/2018.  Ext.A2 is the lawyer notice.  In Ext.A3 is the postal receipt(2 in Nos.) In Ext.A4 is the  acknowledgment card and Ext.A5 is the reply notice.  In the evidence  of PW1 he deposed that “ Ext.A1  ബില്ല് OP.NO.1 എഴുതി തയ്യാറാക്കിയതാണ്?ശരിയാണ്. Ext.A1 ഫ്രിഡ്ജിന്ർറെ batch No, model No. പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല.  അതുപോലെ serial No.പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. Fridge ഏത് star rate- ൽ ആണ് എന്ന് തെളിയിക്കുന്നതിന് കോടതിയിൽ നിന്ന് expert നെ വച്ച് പരിശോധിച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു? എനിക്ക് അതിനെപ്പറ്റി അറിയില്ല. യഥാർത്ഥവിലയെക്കാൾ കൂടുതൽ വിലയാണ് OP.NO.1 വാങ്ങിയത് എന്ന് തെളിയിക്കുന്ന ഏതെങ്കിലും രേഖകൾ കോടതി മുമ്പാകെ ഹാജരാക്കിയോ? രേഖകൾ ഇല്ല. Two star വിഭാഗത്തിലുള്ള fridge ആണ് എന്ന് എങ്ങനെയാണ് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയത്? കമ്പനിയിൽ വിളിച്ച് അന്വോഷിച്ചപ്പോഴാണ് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയത്. But not stated in the complaint or chief affidavit.  Two star fridge- ന് 2018- ൽ 8900/- രൂപ മാത്രമേ വിലവരൂ എന്ന് കാണിക്കുന്ന രേഖകൾ എന്നും ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല? ഇല്ല. Moreover PW1 stated that ഇപ്പോൾ fridge work ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ട്. The complainant is not produced any document to prove that the cost of 2 star Godrej fridge will come Rs.9800/- only in 2018.  Moreover the complainant is not produced the copy of complaint lodged before the police. The complainant has not taken an expert evidence to prove that the  star  rating of the fridge.  Moreover the complainant has stated that he had purchased the fridge on 16/5/2018 and the complaint filed on 20/11/2021.  He stated that he came to know that the fridge  is of 2 star category on 21/12/2020.  But the lawyer notice send on 15/2/2021.  So the  complainant is not produced any documents and regarding the star rating of the fridge. The complainant is not entitled to prefer complaint after 16/5/2020.  The complaint is also time barred one and contemplated in Sec.69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  On OP’s side except the version  no other documents produced.  Moreover the complainant used the fridge for more than 3 years and there was no mechanical or electrical complaint occurred so far.  The complainant has the duty to verify all the specifications and condition of goods before purchasing the same and only after satisfying the same and  satisfies the price offered and purchasing the same and fixing the price also.  So the complainant is not proved unfair trade practice against the OP’s.  There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OP’s.  So the  issue No.1 found in favour of the OPs and answered according.

        As discussed above due to the  aforesaid deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s not proved by the complainant.  So the complainant is miserably failed to prove the case.   Thus  the issue No.2&3 are also found  against the complainant. 

   Hence the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not proved the unfair trade practice against the OP’s.  So the compensation and cost not allowed.

          In the result the complaint is  dismissed.  No order as to cost .

Exts:

A1-cash bill dtd.16/5/2018

A2-lawyer  notice

A3-postal  receipt(2 in Nos)

A4- acknowledgment card

A5-reply notice

PW1-Rajesh.K.R-  complainant

Sd/                                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                      MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                                                   /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                                            ASSISTANT REGISTRAR