கன்ஸ்யூமர் வழக்கு தொடர்பான தீர்ப்பு

ஒரு தீர்ப்பின் நகல்

கன்ஸ்யூமர் வழக்கு தொடர்பான தீர்ப்பு ஒன்றின் நகலை இப் பதிவில் தந்து உள்ளேன். படித்து பாருங்கள். இதிலிருந்தே பல விஷயங்களை தானாகவே புரிந்து கொள்ள முடியும். அடுத்த பதிவில் விளக்கம் தருகிறேன்.

------------------------------------------------------------

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)No.212, R.K.MUTT ROAD, III FLOOR, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI – 4

PRESENT : THIRU. P. ROSIAH, B.Sc., M.L., PRESIDENT

TMT. Y. MALLIGA, B.Sc., MEMBER - I

 TUESDAY, THE 3^rd DAY OF MARCH 2009

C.C.NO.318/2007

K.S. Sriram, S/o. M.S. Seshadri, Complainant No.25/01, 12^th Main Road,M.G.R. Nagar, Velacherry, Chennai – 600 042.

Vs

The authorized Signatory Vivek Ltd., Opposite Party No.35, I Main Road,Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai -20.

Date of Complaint 23.07.2007

M/s. Sujatha Rangarajan, & Sudar Muthiah: Advocate for the complainant

Mr. V. Manohar : Counsel for the opposite party

 O R D E R

THIRU. P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT

Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows: The complainant purchased new Kelvinator Refrigerator from the Opposite party shop on 13.01.2007 for sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and that the Refrigerator was installed on 19.01.2007at the resident of the complainant. Within three hours after it was installed the Refrigerator generated unbearable high sound for every half an hour. The complainant immediately informed the service centre and one Mr. Kumar attended the Refrigerator and told that the problem of high sound and Vegetables have got rotten and it was discoloured could not be rectified. The complainant had also sent complaint regarding the defective Refrigerator through email to the Opposite party’s service centre. But there was no response. After causing legal notice, the complainant has filed this complaint for replacing defective Refrigerator with new one and compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- for costs of the complaint.

2. The opposite party filed version and contended inter alia that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party, the manufacturer as a party. When the complainant complained about some noise from the Refrigerator, the Opposite party informed the service engineers of the service centre and that the service engineer attended to the complaint of the complainant and thereafter the Opposite party did not receive any complaint from the complainant. The Opposite party was not informed about continuous defect in the Refrigerator. Since the complaint did not inform the defect the Opposite party was under impression of that the refrigerator was rectified. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4. Proof affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant. No documents were marked on the side of the opposite party.

5. The points that arise for consideration are;-

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

opposite party?

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6. Point No.1: The opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased Refrigerator from the Opposite party shop on 13.01.2007. Ex A1 is the purchase bill. The complainant complained about sound in refrigerator and informed the Opposite party who in turn contacted the service engineer and ;that the service engineer attended the same. Despite that the refrigerator did not function properly. The refrigerator generated sound and vegetables got in the refrigerator became rotten itself and decayed. The complainant by letter dated 30.01.2007 (Ex A4) to the opposite party informed that the refrigerator generated notice and requested to replace the stand by unit with a new one. Subsequent to that, the complainant issued notice dated 02.05.2007 (Ex A5) requesting the opposite party either to rectify the defective refrigerator or replace the same with news one. But, the opposite party did not respond to the request of the complainant.

7. The opposite party would submit that he is only a dealer and not a manufacturer. The complainant does not implead the manufacturer as a party Hence, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. According to the decision of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, reported in CPR IV-1991 Page 498 in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao – Vs – M/s. Southern Agencies , the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, held that dealer and manufacturer jointly liable for defect in the article. The Opposite party cannot escape liability on the ground that the manufacturer has not been made as a party. The opposite party sold the article to the complainant who is a consumer and responsible for the good condition of the refrigerator. It is seen from Ex A4 and A5 that the Opposite party has not taken any action to rectify the refrigerator or to replace the same with a new one. The act of the Opposite party amount s to deficiency in service. The point is answered accordingly.

8. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace the defective stand by Refrigerator with a new one free from any defect and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist, taking down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 3^rd day of March 2009.

MEMBER-I PRESIDENT

Complainant Documents:

Ex A1 13.01.2007 Sale bill credit

Ex A2 13.01.2007 Collection receipt

Ex A3 13.01.2007 Refrigerator warranty

Ex A4 Email by complainant

Ex A5 02.05.2007 Legal notice to the OP

Ex A6 Copy of acknowledgement

Opposite party Document: Nil

MEMBER-I PRESIDENT

கூடலூர் நுகர்வோர் மனித வள சுற்றுச்சுழல் பாதுகாப்பு மையம் மக்கள் மையம்