IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 28th day of September, 2017
Filed on 25.08.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.255/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Ambi, Muringanadu 1. The Officer in charge of
Thookkukulam, Alappuzha Administration , Godrej and
(Adv. Sheeba.S) Boyce Manufacturing Co
Ltd. Pirojsha Nagar
Vikhroli, Mumbai 400 079
2. Attinkara Electronics
General Hospital Junction
Alappuzha
Unit of Attinkara Global impex
(By Adv.Varghese John)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in precise is as follows:-
The complainant on 9th February, 2014 purchased a refrigerator for an amount of Rs. 16,100/- from the opposite parties. Within one week of the said purchase, the said article displayed leakage and imperfection. The complainant approached the opposite parties and impressed upon them as to the defective nature of the recently bought gadget. The opposite parties were evasive in their approach. On being repeatedly demanded, the opposite parties on 13th December, 2014 sent up a service personnel and the refrigerator was repaired. However, even after the said service the condition of the refrigerator remained the same. The complainant over again approached the opposite parties on several occasions. After so many requests and demands, the opposite parties on 27th August, 2015 caused to replace the door of the refrigerator. The gadget still remained out of order, and the complainant approached the opposite parties. The opposite parties approached were unfair and insulted the complainant. The refrigerator was seemingly defective beyond the scope of revamp, the complainant contends. The complainant on getting aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notices being served, the opposite parties appeared and filed version. The crux of the contentions of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties are reputed firms. The allegation of the complainant as to the refrigerator’s imperfection within one week of its purchase is a absolutely false. The opposite parties had sent service personnel to rectify the impairment of the material article. According to the opposite parties the complainant’s contention to the effect that the gadget over again displayed defect is contrary to truth. The instant complaint has been filed on experimental basis. The service of the opposite parties is not deficient. Their trade practice is fair. The complainant is not entitled for any relief The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. Commission report was marked as Court document.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-
1) Whether the refrigerator sold out by the opposite parties to the complainant
has inherent manufacturing defect?
2) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. Concededly the complainant purchased the material refrigerator from the opposite parties. The complainant’s particular case is that within one week of its purchase the gadget displayed leakage and imperfection of the compressor. The complainant had to repeatedly approach the opposite parties to prefer complaint with regard to the recently bought refrigerator. Though the opposite parties service man patched up the refrigerator, it over again went defective repeatedly. The complainant realized that the refrigerator has been suffering from inherent defect. According to the opposite parties, the refrigerator displayed no defect within one week of its purchase. The opposite parties’ service men rectified the defect immediately the complaint was received. The complaint has been filed experimentally. Keeping the party’s contentions in mind we carefully perused the materials brought on record by the parties. On a bare perusal of the complaint, version and other materials, it does appear that the gadget went defective on several occasions. Admittedly, the opposite parties caused repair of the same. In the said premise the opposite parties’ contentions apparently do not hold water. What is more, the commission report that forms the part of the records categorically asserts that the refrigerator is having inherent defect disabling the same for tis purpose. Thus going by the materials available before us in its entirety we are of the considered view that the complainant’s case merit acceptance. The opposite parties are definitely liable for the injury the complainant sustained. It goes without saying that the complainant is entitled to relief.
In the result, complaint allowed. The opposite parties are directed to either refund to the complainant the cost of the refrigerator viz Rs. 16,100/-(Rupees Sixteen thousand and one hundred only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of institution of this complaint till its recovery or replace the material gadget with a similar one. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a compensation amount of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) and Rs. 2000/- as cost of this proceedings. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of the same.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2017.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Ambi(Witness)
Ext.A1 - True Copy of the bill for Rs. 16,001/-
Ext.A2 - True Copy of the receipt 3.12.2014
Ext.A3 - True Copy of the receipt 27.8.2015
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
