Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

First Appeal No. 854/2012. Case: Darsana Traders Vs M. Gopinathan. Kerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 854/2012
Party NameDarsana Traders Vs M. Gopinathan
CounselFor Appellant: Mrs. Manju Prasad, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. V.K. Anilkumar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jaideep G. Nair, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
JudgesP.Q. Barkath Ali, J. (President)
IssueConsumer Law
CitationII (2014) CPJ 122 (Ker.)
Judgement DateApril 05, 2014
CourtKerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

P.Q. Barkath Ali, J. (President)

  1. This is an appeal filed by the 1st opposite party in C.C. 132/12 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 31, 2012 directing the 1st opposite party to replace defective fridge by a new one and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 and a cost of Rs. 1,000. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant purchased a Godrej Refrigerator from the first opposite party for Rs. 14,800. Ext. A1 is the cash receipt dated, October 30, 2006. Ext. A2 is the warranty card. Refrigerator has a 10 years Rust Protection Plan. During 2008 the lower side of the refrigerator became affected with rust. Though the said fact was communicated to the first opposite party he did not do anything. From 2011 October onwards refrigerator became defective. M/s. J.S. Services, the service provider of the first opposite party have collected Rs. 950 towards the cost of repair. On October 29, 2011 the service provider inspected the refrigerator of the complainant and found that the front door of the refrigerator is fully covered with rust. The first opposite party has not cared to rectify those defects. Therefore complainant filed this complaint for replacement of the refrigerator and claiming compensation.

  2. Both the opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum. First opposite party contended thus in his version. It is admitted that complainant purchased the refrigerator from the first opposite party. First opposite party is only a dealer and agent of 2nd opposite party, M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company. Warranty card was also supplied by the 2nd opposite party. First opposite party did not give any undertaking to replace the Fridge. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

  3. The 2nd opposite party did not file any version.

  4. Complainant produced Exts. A1 to A8 before the Forum. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party in not supplying new Fridge to the complainant and directed the first opposite party to supply a new Godrej Refrigerator to him and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5000 and a cost of Rs. 1000. First opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

  5. Heard both the Counsel...

To continue reading

Request your trial