A. Antony Muthu Vs. M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director and Others

A. Antony Muthu vs M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai Decided Apr 29, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1107375

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1107375
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Judge: R. Regupathi, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. S. Sambandam, Member
Decided On: Apr 29, 2013
Case Number: F.A.No. 1051 of 2011 (Against order in C.C.NO.4/2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Tiruvallur)
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Antony Muthu

Respondent

M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director and Others

Excerpt

.....the present appeal. 2. the case of the complainant is that he purchased a whirlpool refrigerator model no.10865 elite as 220 liters, in code no.081205, serial no.inao 84903830 for a sum of rs.15,500/- on 17.7.2009, from the 3rd opposite party, manufactured by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. on the date of the delivery itself, the complainant suspecting that an old piece has been delivered, made a complaint to the 2 and 3 opposite parties. on receipt of the complaint, the 2nd opposite party under the guise of giving demo, visited the premises of the complainant, and subsequently the service engineer also has visited, and replied to the complainant that the date of manufacture could not get revealed, inspite of repeated complaints, and reminders by the complainant, to replace the refrigerator delivered to him, with a new one, there was no proper response, resulting in the filing of the complaint. 3. the 3rd opposite party, after receipt of notice, failed to appear before the district forum, therefore set exparte. 4. the 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed common written version, wherein they have stated that the refrigerator delivered to the complainant was new one, and it was functioning without any complaint till date, and the complainant has not substantiated that the refrigerator delivered was an old one, and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. the district forum, on receipt of the materials filed by both parties, and on hearing the arguments, declined the request of the complainant. it is observed that the date of manufacture was mentioned as may 2009, and the refrigerator was delivered on 17.7.2009. no allegation has been made neither about the manufacture nor about the working of the refrigerator, and held that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 6. at the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the counsel for the respondent/ opposite party, offered to replace a new refrigerator, and it is reported by the counsel for the appellant.....

Full Judgment

(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.09.2011 in CC. No.4/2011.

This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 27.3.2013. Upon hearing the arguments of the Appellant in person counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:)

R. Regupathi, President

1. Aggrieved against the order impugned, passed by the District Forum, the complainant preferred the present appeal.

2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Whirlpool refrigerator model No.10865 Elite AS 220 liters, in code No.081205, Serial No.INAO 84903830 for a sum of Rs.15,500/- on 17.7.2009, from the 3^rd opposite party, manufactured by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. On the date of the delivery itself, the complainant suspecting that an old piece has been delivered, made a complaint to the 2 and 3 opposite parties. On receipt of the complaint, the 2^nd opposite party under the guise of giving demo, visited the premises of the complainant, and subsequently the service engineer also has visited, and replied to the complainant that the date of manufacture could not get revealed, inspite of repeated complaints, and reminders by the complainant, to replace the refrigerator delivered to him, with a new one, there was no proper response, resulting in the filing of the complaint.

3. The 3^rd opposite party, after receipt of notice, failed to appear before the District Forum, therefore set exparte.

4. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed common written version, wherein they have stated that the refrigerator delivered to the complainant was new one, and it was functioning without any complaint till date, and the complainant has not substantiated that the refrigerator delivered was an old one, and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. The District Forum, on receipt of the materials filed by both parties, and on hearing the arguments, declined the request of the complainant. It is observed that the date of manufacture was mentioned as May 2009, and the refrigerator was delivered on 17.7.2009. No allegation has been made neither about the manufacture nor about the working of the refrigerator, and held that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. At the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the counsel for the respondent/ opposite party, offered to replace a new refrigerator, and it is reported by the counsel for the appellant that the same was not only declined by the complainant, but a demand for Rs.1 lakh in addition to replacing was made to withdraw the complaint on compromise.

7. The complainant appearing in person insisted that though the refrigerator was functioning properly till date, since the date of manufacture has not been specifically mentioned inspite of repeated demand, it should be construed as deficiency of service, and demanded substitution of a new piece, and a heavy compensation.

8. We have perused the materials available on record, and heard the submissions on either side.

9. The only complaint made by the complainant was that at the time of inspection, they could not find the date of manufacture in the refrigerator supplied. Therefore he has suspected that an old refrigerator has been supplied to him. The complainant has not complained about the functioning of the refrigerator, at the time when the complaint was adjudicated before the District Forum, and even before this commission. The only grievance is that the date of manufacture was not affixed on the refrigerator, and thereby submitted that the opposite party adopted unfair trade practice. It is true that the date of manufacture should have mentioned. But it seen from Ex.A17, the label affixed on the carton box, the manufacturing date has been noted as May 2009. The refrigerator was admittedly purchased during July 2009. Though it is alleged that an old piece has been supplied to him, no specific complaint regarding the functioning of the refrigerator has been made. It appears that the label which was affixed on the carton box, regarding the date of manufacture as May 2009 also would have been affixed on the refrigerator, and under such circumstances the complainant suspected that the refrigerator supplied was an old one. Hence holding that the refrigerator supplied was a new one, and finding no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant, we concur with the findings of the District Forum.

10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.4/2011 dt.30.9.2011. There will be no order as to cost.

Same Court & Year Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC... Same Parties A. Antony Muthu vs M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Rep. by Mana... Same Subject MRTP Same Judge R. Regupathi, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. S. Sambandam...