BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31th day of August 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.350/201
(Admitted on 30.11.2012)
Mr. Purushotham K.N,
S/o. Nagappa Gowda K.B.
Aged about 54years,
R/a. C.3.22, RNE KMC flats,
Light House Hill Road, Mangalore.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri K.B. Arasa.)
VERSUS
- The Manager,
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd,
The Karnataka Film Chambers of Commerce,
28, 1st main Cresent Road,
High Grounds,
2. The Manager, Harsha,
K.S. Rao Road,
Mangalore. 570 001
…............OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 Sri. Bharatharaj Hegde)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 Hemalata Mallya)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in goods against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant purchased Godrej washing machine from the opposite parties on 22.10.2006. It is stated that on 8.4.2012 the complainant noticed there is leakage of water in the Washing machine. Hence he has given a complaint, the Service Engineer of the Opposite Party inspected the machine and informed there is a defect in the tub and it has to be replaced and said replacement of tub is not available. Complainant stated that the machine is 5½ years old and it cannot be believed that the machine is out dated and old model. Feeling aggrieved by the above, the complainant issued a legal notice and called for the opposite parties to repair the washing machine but the opposite parties failed to comply the demand made therein, hence the above complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The version notice served to the opposite parties appeared through their counsels filed separate version. Opposite party No.1 denied the allegations alleged in the complaint and stated that the Washing Machine has been purchased in the month of October 2006 and said machine repair warranty up to 25 months from the date of purchase. The Warranty does not cover the accessories. It is stated that the Washing Machine being 5½ years old is an outdated model and the parts are not available and hence the question of supplying the parts does not arise and denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The opposite party No.2 filed the version stated that this Opposite party is a dealer as soon as the complaint lodged by the complainant is referred to the manufacturer hence there is no deficiency and sought for dismissal of the complainant.
3. In support of the complaint, Sri. Mr. Purushotham K.N, (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C7 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. On behalf of the opposite parties i.e., One P. Raghavan, Branch Commercial Manager, Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd., (RW1) & Mr. Yogish K, Store Manager, Harsha(RW2) filed counter affidavit. The Complainant produced notes of arguments.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Godrej Washing Machine purchased by him from the Opposite Parties on 22.10.2016 proves to be defective?
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iv):
The facts which are admitted is that on 22.10.2006 the complainant purchased the Washing Machine model No. GFT 600 Unit Sr.No.6070:0422 for the amount of Rs.16,990. It is also admitted that opposite party No.2 delivered the machine on 21.02.2006 and opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the Washing machine and opposite party No.2 is the dealer. It is also not dispute that on 5.7.2012 complainant lodged a complaint through the customer care regarding some water leakage in the above said machine. Further it is admitted that on 5.7.2012 one of the service man of the opposite party inspected the machine and found that there is a defect in tub and it has to be replaced.
Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this authority is that the complainant contended that the Washing machine purchased on 22.10.2006 and the said machine is 5½ years old. In the year 2012 it had a problem of water leakage. The service engineer found that the tub has to be replaced but the opposite parties not providing the tub or repairing the washing machine even though complainant willing to repair by paying cost. Hence this complaint. The opposite parties interlia contended that the above said machine is 5½ years old and spare parts are not available hence they offered 12% concession for the new model and denied the deficiency.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, it is a case of unfair trade practice because the washing machine in question is 5½ years old and the manufacturer of the said product is liable to repair the above said product by replacing the spare parts on payment basis not free of cost. The manufacturer cannot trade the goods according to their own whims and fancies and stop the production of spare parts of their own. No doubt the opposite parties could stop the manufacturing of the same model but it is their bounden duty to provide spare parts for the same model those are already sold to the consumers. But in the present case the opposite party no 1 denied to repair the washing machine of 5½ years old and insisting the customers to buy their new product amount to unfair trade practice. The opposite party failed to produce any authority/proof/evidence to show that they could stop the manufacturing of the spare parts after certain years in the instant case within 5 years. There is no substance to say we stopped production of spare parts.
By considering the above aspect, we hold that it is the duty of the manufacturer to provide the spare parts and repair the washing machine and deliver to the complainant. In the instant case the opposite parties not taken any steps therefore we hold that service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service. Under the above circumstances, we hereby directed the opposite party. No.1 to repair the washing machine manufactured by them and see that machine should be in working condition and also pay Rs.10,000 as a damages for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant and further pay Rs.3,000 as cost of the litigation expenses.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall repair the washing machine free of cost by taking back the defective machine from the complainant and also pay Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000(Rupees Three thousand) as litigation expenses. Compliance and payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the
stipulated time, the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum of the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of August 2016.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 .Mr. Purushotham K.N
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 . 22.10.2006: The cash Receipt No. 4C1 04114 original.
Ex C2 . 02.11.2006: Cash Receipt original.
Ex C3 . 05.07.2012: Service Charge Receipt original.
Ex C4 . 01.08.2012: The letter of the Opposite Party No.1 original.
Ex C5 . 06.09.2012: Copy of the letter office copy.
Ex C6.10.09.2012: Postal Acknowledgement by Opposite Party No.1 original.
Ex C7 . 08.09.2012: Postal Acknowledgement by of Opposite Party No.2 original.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 .Mr. P. Raghavan, Branch Commercial Manager
RW2 .Mr. Yogish K, Store Manager
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 31.08.2016 PRESIDENT
