This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mandadapu Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri Shaik Hyder Ali, Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following:

O R D E R

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

          This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Samsung Washing machine Model No.WA78D40/XTL from the opposite party No.1 on 12-03-2010 for Rs.18,400/- and the warrantee period is for 2 years.  The complainant submitted that after 2 months, the washing machine was not working properly; the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1.  And he failed to rectify the problem as there is a defect in the washing machine.  The complainant further submitted that on the advise opposite party No.1, the complainant given a complaint through telephone to the authorities of Company, vide complaint No.4022601074, dated 29-05-2010.  The complainant further submitted that the opposite party appointed their company engineer by name Shiva Naga Malleshwar Rao, who attended the repairs but even after attending by their engineer the problem was not rectified and finally he promised to replace the washing machine with new one, accordingly the complainant handed over the defective washing machine to the opposite party No.1 on 25-09-2010 and after that the complainant so many times approached the opposite party No.1 requesting to provide a new washing machine, but the opposite parties postponing the same one pretext or the other, vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties the complainant is constrained to issue legal notice on 08-10-2010 and the same was acknowledged by opposite party No.1 but he failed to give reply.  The complainant further submitted that as the opposite parties failed to replace the washing machine with new one as such the complainant approached the forum for redressal.

3.       While the matter is pending the complainant filed a petition IA.No.51/2012 to implead S. Jyothi, W/o. Late Bhaskar Rao, Age: 40 years, Occu: Proprietor, Sri. Venkata Sai Electronics, Near Municipal Office, Khammam as the opposite party no.1 died, and the proposed party being his wife and as legal heir of opposite party No.1 and the same was allowed by this Forum on 20-06-2013. The opposite party No.3 as impleaded in the array of opposite parties

4.       On behalf of the complainant the following documents were marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.

Ex.A1:- Cash Receipt dt. 12-03-2010.

Ex.A2:- Photocopy of Customer service record card.

Ex.A3:- Office copy of legal notice, dt.08.10.2010 along with postal receipt and

   acknowledgement.

Ex.A4:- Acknowledgement pertaining handing over the washing machine,

   dt. 25-09-2010.

5.       On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter opposite party No.3 admitted the purchase of washing machine by the complainant from their showroom.  The opposite party No.3 submitted that if any defect or repair to be occurred with regard to Samsung machineries any authorized service centre is available in Khammam town, for attending replacing the said machineries.  The opposite party No.3 further submitted that they are only selling electrical goods but not service centre or authorized service centre of any of the companies, they are not at all responsible or liable to pay the damages to the complainant and also submitted that the complainant never handed over the said washing machine to the opposite party No.1 and on one occasion the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 to attend repair on the said washing machine, but the opposite party No.1 replied that if any repair or defect arose it would be solved in the Samsung authorized service centre, accordingly the complainant left the premises.  The opposite party No.3 also submitted that they are neither responsible nor liable if the defect or repair arose in the machine and same will be solved by the Samsung India Ltd., and the opposite party No.2 only responsible for all the consequences and prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.  The opposite party no.2 filed an adoption memo to treat the contents of the counter of opposite party no.3 as their counter. 

6.       On behalf of the opposite party No.3, filed payment particulars of washing machine which is marked as exhibit B1.

7.       Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,

          1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?

          2) To what relief?

Point No.1:-

In this case the complainant purchased Samsung Washing Machine from the opposite party No.1 on 12-03-2010 at the time of purchase the opposite party issued warranty for a period of 2 years.  As the washing machine not working properly, the complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1.  On the advise of opposite party No.1, the complainant given a complaint to the company through telephone vide complaint No.4022601074, dated 29-05-2010.  After waiting for a considerable time as the opposite parties failed to rectify the problem or to replace with new washing machine, the complainant got issued notice and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties.  Even though as the opposite parties failed to replace with new one, the complainant approached the forum for deficiency in service.

          From the material available on record, we observed that the complainant purchased a new washing machine and it gave trouble. The complainant became dissatisfied with the functioning of the washing machine; he had given a complaint to the opposite parties to rectify the problem or to replace with new one.  And also we observed from the complaint that the service engineer by name Shiva Naga Malleshwar Rao attended the repairs and the problem was not rectified and he promised the washing machine with new one.   After that the complainant had taken all the steps by way of issuing notice and filing complaint before this forum.  According to the opposite parties, they are ready to rectify the problem of the washing machine to the entire satisfaction of the complainant or they are ready to replace washing machine to the complainant but they failed to do the same.  From the above we observed that the defect is major or minor, once the consumer looses satisfaction of having washing machine.  The loss of satisfaction would be much more in the case when a person buys a new washing machine with his hard earned money.  In view of the aforesaid reasons this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:-

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to refund the cost of the washing machine worth Rs.9,200/- and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs and damages, the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. till actual payment.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 6^th day of April, 2015.

  Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                         -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

                  Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam