BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A. MEMBER
Friday, 17th April 2015
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 83 / 2014
T. Prabhakar babu, S/o Venkatesu, Hindu,
age 36 years, Business, R/o D.No. 67/268,
R.V. Nagar, Kadapa city. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Proprietor, Sri Siva Agencies, 3/103 (1),
Christian lane, Behind NTR Statue, Kadapa – 516001,
Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Branch Service Manager, Whirlpool Service Center,
SLN Solutions, D.No. 10/1036, Posinavari Street,
Opp. Nehru Park, Cooperative Colony, Kadapa City & District,
Andhra Pradesh state.
3. The Manager, Whirlpool of India Ltd., Plot No. 6 & 7,
D.No. 1-11-252/6 & 7-A & B, Survey No. 185,
Ground floor, Doura Classic, Begumpeta, Hyderabad,
Telangana State. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 8-4-2015 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri K. Vijaya Krishna, Advocate for complainant and O.P.1 appeared as in person and O.P.2 remained absent on 16-12-2015 and O.P.3 set exparte on 11-2-2015 and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 requesting this forum to direct the Opposite parties:-
(a) To replace washing machine new similar model or to refund the cost of Rs. 19,300/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 7-11-2012 until realization.
(b) To pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation.
(c) to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and physical strain.
(d) To pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant purchased a washing machine bearing Sl. No. 122711459, model No. 13819 on 7-11-2012 for an amount of Rs. 19,300/- from the Opposite party No. 1 (for short herein called as O.P) which is manufactured by O.P.3 and they provided warranty of complete washing machine for 2 years. The O.P.2 is the local authorized service center of O.P.3.
3. The complainant stated that the washing machine worked well for one year later then difference in the sound and leaking of water in the washing machine and he complained the same to O.P.1 on 5-6-2014 on the next day the service center personnel came and repaired the washing machine and said that the machine should not be used for one day. The complainant further stated that after 2 days when the washing machine was switched and the water was leaking from top to down. Again, he brought the same to O.P.1 and complained to O.P.2 by phone. The service personnel came and checked the machine and told that the water was leaking from drum (tub) and went away on the next day he came and told that it is not possible to repair the tub and the same should be changed and also told that he will informed to him about availability of the drum. There was no response from O.P.2 entire one week after that he approached O.P.1 & 2 and they told that they should not change the drum at the house and asked him to bring the machine to service center. The complainant brought the machine and handed over to the O.P.2 during last week of June 2014. The O.P.2 promised to change the drum.
4. It is further stated that after 10 days, when the complainant approached O.P.2, he told that the drums stock was not available and they have put an order to the Head Office and asked to come after 15 days. Again 15 days they told that the stock of drums not yet received and advised the complainant to contact Mr. Raghu, who is the supervisor of O.P.2. He contacted Mr. Raghu, over phone he said that no mail received and that he would talk to service center and promised to solve the problem as early as possible and also stated that there was no stock of drums they would replace the washing machine with new one. The complainant has been pursuing O.P.2, as well as Mr. Raghu, regularly. But they were delaying the matter on some pretext and that there was delay in transport due to bifurcation of the state and shifting of Head Office. It is further stated that the complainant is doing gold business and every time where he goes to service center he has to close down the business and suffered loss in business and suffered mentally and physically and also stated that as per warranty terms of the company is obligated, either to replace the part which was defective or to repair the same and make it in working condition. But the O.P’s failed to get it in working condition either by replacing the defective part or repair the same. The Opposite parties are offering that as per their company depreciation of policy they would refund an amount of Rs. 14,400/- only by deducting depreciation value of Rs. 3,860/- and transportation cost of Rs. 1,000/- as against the original price of Rs. 19,300/- which is fully untenable that there is clearly deficiency of service on the party of the opposite parties. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 27-9-2014 and they issued reply notice with false allegations on29-9-2014. Hence, this complaint. 5. After registered the case notices were issued to the opposite parties and the same received by the opposite parties. O.P.1 filed counter and O.P.2 called absent. The O.P3 counsel filed vakalath sufficient time was given to file counter but they did not filed counter. Hence, they set exparte.
6. O.P.1 filed counter and admitted that the complainant has purchased washing machine on 7-11-2012 for an amount of Rs. 19,300/- and O.P.3 has provided warranty of two years and also admitted that the complainant gave a complaint to this O.P. on 5-6-2014 about sounding in washing machine and leakage of water drops from the machine and further stated that after receiving the said complaint this O.P. has informed to the company authorized service center. The complainant has handed over the washing machine to the service center during last week of June 2014.
7. The O.P.1 also stated that being the dealer of O.P.3 and his role is limited to the extent of selling the products and conveying the complaints, if any from the customers to the service center or to the company and he has perfectly discharged his duties in the above matter. Therefore, no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P1 and tried this forum may dismiss the complaint with costs.
8. To prove his case the complainant is filed an affidavit along with documents and got marked Exs. A1 to A7 by consent. On behalf of the opposite parties no documents are marked.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- To what relief?
10. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The contention of the complainant is that he purchased washing machine from O.P.1 and O.P.3 has provided two years warranty. The said machine is worked well for one year, after that the problem was started in the said washing machine. The same is complained by him but the Opposite parties not rectified the problem and not replaced the machine.
11. As seen from Ex. A1, it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the above said washing machine from O.P.1 which is manufactured by O.P.3 and as seen from Ex. A2 the O.P.3 provided warranty for two years and also the complainant stated that the said washing machine worked well for one year later then difference in sound and leaking of water in the washing machine and he complained the same to O.P.1 on 5-6-2014. On the next day the service center personnel came and repaired after two days when the washing machine switched, the water was leaking from top to down. Again he complained O.P.1 and 2, again the service personnel checked the machine and told that the water leaking from drum (tub) and told that it is not possible to repair the tub and the same should be changed and also told that he will informed to him about availability of drum. The complainant handed over the machine to O.P.2 last week of June 2014. As seen from Ex. A3 service request which is issued by O.P.2 it reveals that this said machine drum broken, it is pending for new drum. The complainant approached O.P.2, he told that the drum stock was not available and they have put an order to the Head Office and asked to come after 15 days. The complainant approached after 15 days they told that drums not yet to receive and advised to contact Mr. Raghu, who is the supervisor of O.P.2. As per advice the complainant contacted Mr. Raghu he said that no mail received and that he would talk to service center and promised to solve the problem.
12. As seen from Ex. A4 filed by O.P.2 i.e. SLN solutions it reveals that they would refund the amount of said washing machine of Rs. 14,440/- after deducting 20% depreciation value and transportation charge of Rs. 1,000/-. It shows that the O.P.2 agreed himself their deficiency in service.
13. The machine started problems within two years in agreement period and the O.P.2 company supervisor promised to the complainant to solve the problem as soon as possible, still the machine lying in O.P.2 but the problem not solved and nor replaced the same. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to replace the above said washing machine.
14. As per the above discussion we hold that the complainant established deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties, as such the points are answered against the opposite parties.
15. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to replace the washing machine the same which is purchased earlier by the complainant and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 17th April 2015
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Opposite parties : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 Original cash credit bill dt. 7-11-2012 bearing No. 2863 issued by Sri Siva agencies, Kadapa.
Ex. A2 Warrant card issued by O.P.1 bearing No. 122711459, dt. 7-11-2012.,
Ex. A3 Service request dt. 4-7-2014 issued by the Whirlpool of India Ltd.,
Consumer Service H.O. 28, N.I.T Faridabad.
Ex. A4 S.L.N Solution issued by 2nd respondent.
Ex. A5 O/c of legal notice issued by complainant counsel to O.P.1 & 2, dt. 27-9-14
Ex. A6 Reply notice dt. 29-9-2014 issued by the Branch Service manager,
Whirlpool of India Ltd., Vijayawada to complainant counsel.
Ex. A7 Postal Acknowledgements cards 2 numbers dt. 29-9-2014.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties: - NIL
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri K. Vijaya Krishna, Advocate for complainant.
- The Proprietor, Sri Siva Agencies, 3/103 (1), Christian lane, Behind NTR Statue, Kadapa – 516001, Kadapa Dist, A.P.
- The Branch Service Manager, Whirlpool Service Center,
SLN Solutions, D.No. 10/1036, Posinavari Street, Opp. Nehru
Park, Cooperative Colony, Kadapa City & District, A.P. State.
- The Manager, Whirlpool of India Ltd., Plot No. 6 & 7, D.No.
1-11-252/6 & 7-A & B, Survey No. 185, Ground floor, Doura Classic, Begumpeta, Hyderabad, Telangana State
B.V.P.
