By Smt.  Bindu. R,  President:

          This  complaint is filed by Vijaya Baby,  Pookkoli House, Kaniyambetta (P.O),  Kollivayal,  Vythiri Taluk,  Wayanad District against  the Manager/ Proprietor,       E- Planet, Al Sahara Complex,  Main road,  Kalpetta, Wayanad District and another as Opposite Parties alleging  deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.

          2. The Complainant alleged that the Complainant had purchased a  Kelvinator Refrigerator  on 26.12.2020 for  Rs.15,100/-  which had 5 years  warranty.  According to the Complainant the refrigerator  became  defective within One year of its  purchase ie  on 29.09.2021, the matter was informed to the 1^st  Opposite Party.  The refrigerator lost  cooling  effect and there was   foul smell inside  the fridge.  A complaint was also registered about the defect of the fridge.  The 1^st  Opposite Party  had provided service of technician  after  1 week of registration of the complaint.  On inspection,  the technician informed that the  issue is due to the complaint of the compressor and the same  can be replaced.  Further the 1^st  Opposite Party had not given the service of  technician for replacing  the compressor.  When  enquired, the 1^st  Opposite Party informed that the spare compressor is to be received from Kozhikode and assured that the same will be  replaced on getting the same.  According to the Complainant the 1^st  Opposite Party also informed that the warranty will not be given to the  product even though  warranty period was not over.  The  Complainant states that for  KRD-A210 DBP refrigerator 4 years extended  warranty is mentioned for the compressor and at the time of inspection of the product by the technician, it was not  informed the Complainant, that the use of the refrigerator was against the condition stipulated in the warranty card.

          3. Even though  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties assured  warranty for the defects of the product,  the same was not implemented by them which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and hence   Complainant praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to return the price of the product amounting to Rs.15,100/-  along with other reliefs.

          4. Upon notice both  Opposite Parties entered into appearance and filed their separate versions.

          5. In the version  1^st  Opposite Party contented that the  Kelvinator REF. KRDA 210 DBP Refrigerator has been installed and used in the shop of the Petitioner.  According to the 1^st  Opposite Party the Complainant without  operating the defrost  button, used  some sharp edged weapon to  remove the frozen ice in the freezer and formed hole in the freezer door.  The Complainant used  the fridge without knowing the  consequences and hence  naturally the fridge will not work and suppressing all these facts, the present complaint is filed.  According  to 1^st  Opposite Party,  a complaint was reported on 22.11.2021 which was duly registered with intimation to the Complainant.  A technician of 2^nd  Opposite Party inspected the fridge and pointed out the formation of hole in the door to the Complainant.   1^st  Opposite Party contented that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the 1^st  Opposite Party and  prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          6. The  2^nd Opposite Party in their version contented that the complaint is not maintainable and is filed  on  an experimental basis.  A complaint was  registered with 2^nd  Opposite Party on 23.11.2021 relating to the refrigerator for which the 2^nd  Opposite Party  is the manufacturer.  A technician of  2^nd  Opposite Party attended  the Complainant and found that the freezing unit is damaged.  According to 2^nd  Opposite Party,  for defrosting the refrigerator, some sharp object or knife is used to clean the ice formed inside instead pressing the button in the refrigerator and there by freezer  unit is damaged.  2^nd  Opposite Party stated in version that the Complainant admitted that she had used  knife to remove  the ice blocks.   Such  issues are not covered by warranty and  the Complainant expressed her willingness to pay the cost of freezer and accordingly the  2^nd  Opposite Party changed the freezer on 29.11.2021.  After changing the freezer,  the technician noticed that the compressor is also damaged as water entered into the compressor,  when the Complainant used the product while the freezer was damaged.  According to the 2^nd  Opposite Party there is no manufacturing  defect for the refrigerator and the present damage is caused by the improper and negligent usage by  the Complainant.  There is no lack of service from the side of  2^nd  Opposite Party and the Complainant is not eligible to get any relief as prayed for and hence consumer  case is to be  dismissed with cost of  2^nd  Opposite Party.

          7. Evidence in this case  consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 is marked from the side of the Complainant and A2 is marked with objection by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party had not adduced any evidence in this case.

          8. The following are the questions to be analysed in this case.

1.  Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency  of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
2. If so,  the compensation and costs for which the Complainant is entitled to get?

9. The Complainant filed  hearing notes.    Heard the Opposite Party and

Perused the records.

          10. In this case,  the case of the Complainant is that for the livelihood of the family,  the Complainant was conducting a shop on the side of  her  residential  building and for keeping the food items etc  the Complainant purchased a refrigerator on 26.12.2020 on payment of  Rs.15,100/- from  the 1^st  Opposite Party which had 5 year warranty.  But the product was got damaged before completing  1 year of usage but the Opposite Parties were not ready to cure the defect under warranty.  The case of the  2^nd  Opposite Party is that there is no manufacturing defect for the product which was damaged due to  the usage  by the Complainant in an improper manner.

          11. During cross examination,  PW1  deposed that “freezer sâ Npäp-]mSpw sFkv I«-]n-Sn-bv¡m-dp­v A§s\ fridge D]-tbm-Kn-¡p-t¼mÄ sFkv I« t]mIp-¶-Xn\v  fridge off B¡pw.  ½ aWn-¡q-tdmfw off B¡nbnSpw”.  During cross examination,   PW1 denied the statements that the refrigerator was got damaged due to the improper usage of the Complainant herself.  She also deposed that the technician  who  had inspected the fridge, had not  informed  the Complainant about the hole in the freezer.  According to PW1, she is having  complaints of formation of ice and smell inside the refrigerator which is due to  the manufacturing defect of the product which was not been mentioned in the complaint.

          12. Admittedly the defect was noted and informed to the Opposite Party within  the warranty period  itself.  Even though the Opposite Parties contented that there is no manufacturing defect,  Opposite Party had not entered into the box to prove their contention that the defect is happened due to the improper usage by the Complainant herself.  The technician who inspected the product alleged that there is hole in the  freezer which caused the foul smell and  the formation of ice, is not  examined and no other evidences produced  to prove their contention.  Even though the Opposite Party filed   chief affidavit,  they had not entered into the box.  Opposite Parties had not taken any steps to prove the case of the Opposite Parties in their version.

          13. Considering the entire  aspects in detail we find  point No.1 in favour of the Complainant and hence  the following orders are passed.

1.  The Opposite Parties are directed to return the amount of Rs.15,100/-  (Rupees Fifteen thousand  One hundred only) to the Complainant.
2. The Opposite Parties are also liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant.
3. The Opposite Parties shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards  costs of the proceedings.

Needless to say that both   1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties jointed and severally

liable  to pay the above ordered  amount within 30 days  of  receipt of the copy of this order,  otherwise the Opposite Parties are liable  to pay interest at the rate of  6% for the amounts, except that is ordered  as costs from the  date of order till date of realization.

          Hence consumer case is allowed.  

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission on this the 7^th day of December 2024.

Date of filing:10.03.2022                                                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT:   Sd/-                                                                                              MEMBER   :    Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.           P.K. Vijaya Baby.                     Complainant.                          

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits  for the Complainant:

A1.    Invoice.                                    dt:26.12.2020.

A2.    Warranty Card.        

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.