AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by order dated 27.8.2014 in C.C.No.74/2014 on the file of the District Consumer Forum -II, Krishna District at Vijayawada.
THE case of the appellant is that she entrusted a double door L.G.refrigerator for repairs to the opposite parties. The fridge was tested by a technician sent by the opposite parties at the house of the complainant. As it was not possible to repair at the house, the fridge was sent to opposite party No.2''s premises. As the compressor was found to be not working, the complainant paid the estimated charges of Rs.7,386/ - for repairs, compressor, gas filling, etc. The fridge was repaired and returned to the complainant. However it did not work properly. After being tested once again at home, the fridge was sent for the second time to opposite party No.2 on 6.12.2012. The opposite parties promised to return the fridge within three days, but they returned the same on 17.12.2012. The opposite parties did not take timely action in delivering the same to the complainant. In the process, there was a delay of 28 days and during this period, the complainant was put to inconvenience and hardship, besides mental agony. Therefore, she instituted the complaint claiming Rs.10,000/ - towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.5,000/ - towards deprivation of the fridge facility and Rs.10,000/ - towards deficiency in service.
THE claim was resisted by the opposite parties. They stated that the refrigerator was an old one. Firstly, it required replacement of compressor and gas. The said job was carried out and the fridge was delivered to the complainant. Thereafter, on the demand of the complainant other parts were checked and delivered the fridge in a good condition. On the demand of the complainant, the old compressor was also returned. Since on two occasions they were required to repair the fridge, there was a delay of 28 days. Therefore, according to them, there is no deficiency in service. The complainant got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
THE District Forum on a consideration of the matter dismissed the complaint holding that no documentary proof was filed in support of the allegation that there was delay in returning the fridge. It also held that the fridge was delivered in good condition and there is no deficiency in service
HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
THE learned counsel for the appellant while reiterating the stand taken before the District Forum would submit that irrespective of the proof of the evidence with regard to the dates entrusting the fridge to the opposite parties and return of the same to the appellant, there is no dispute that there was a delay of 28 days. The appellant had to face inconvenience and hardship without fridge at home. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation on this account, if not on other accounts.
THIS Commission has considered the aforesaid contention and perused the record. Even according to the appellant, soon after she complained to opposite party No.1 on 20.11.2012 about the non -working of the fridge, a technician was deputed to test the fridge at the house of the appellant, who found that there was no gas. Accordingly the fridge was sent to opposite party No.2 for repair. Opposite party No.2 replaced the compressor and returned the fridge after filling the gas. It appears that the fridge being an old one required some more repairs. Hence, for the second time the fridge was taken to the 2nd opposite party, who after repairing it redelivered the same. No doubt altogether it took 28 days to set right the condition of the fridge, which required repairs on two occasions. In the considered opinion of this Commission 28 days taken for the repairs cannot be considered as unreasonable time. As rightly recorded by the District Forum admittedly the fridge was delivered in a good condition. In the circumstances, it was rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for the relief.
FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.