IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of October, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 115/2024 (Filed on 30/03/2024)
Complainant :
Akhil. S.Kumar
Suresh Bhavan
Ponkunnam.P.O
Kottayam - 686 506
Vs.
Opposite Parties :
1) Ajmal Bismi Electronics
A & F Arcade,
Kurishunkal
Kanjirappally - 686 507
2) Whirlpool Service
Kelvin Refrigerator & A/c Centre
Kuruppu Road
Kanjirappally
3) Whirlpool of India Ltd
Gurugram
Haryana - 122 002
(By Adv. Manu Varappally & K.S.Arundas)
O R D E R
Manulal V.S, President
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine manufactured by the third opposite party from the first opposite party on 08-01- 2024 for Rs.15,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen thousand only). The first opposite party at the time of the purchase offered a free service for two years. The washing machine became defective within 40 days from the date of purchase. Though the complainant lodged several complaints with the opposite parties, they did not care about rectifying the defect of the washing machine. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered much hardship and mental agony. Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to replace the washing machine or in alternative to refund Rs.15,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen thousand only) and to pay compensation of Rs. 1000/- per day from 01-03-2024 till the date of disposal of this case along with the cost of this litigation.
Upon notice from this Commission, the second and third opposite parties appeared before this Commission. Though the notice was served to the first opposite party on 22-4-2024, they did not care to appear before this commission or to file a version. Despite receiving notice from this commission on 22-02-2024, the second opposite party failed to file the version within the statutory period of 45 days.
Version of the 3rd opposite party is as follows:
The 3rd opposite party is a public limited company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1956, having its registered office in Gurgaon. The 3rd opposite party is a renowned manufacturer of various types of home appliances and is widely acclaimed for its class and quality. The first opposite party is an electronics home appliances dealer, and the second opposite party is an electronics service center authorized to provide after sales service to the products manufactured by the third opposite party.
The complainant purchased a washing machine on 08-01-2024 from the shop of the first opposite party, which is manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. The complainant purchased the product after a detailed check and with complete satisfaction. After almost one and half months, the complainant contacted the customer care division of the 3rd opposite party, reported that the washing machine was not working properly, and asked for the replacement of the washing machine. In that communication, the technician sought an appointment with the complainant to inspect the machine, but the complainant refused to give an appointment. The complainant adamantly sticks to his demand for either the replacement of the machine or a refund of the amount. As per warranty terms and conditions, the liability of the 3rd opposite party is restricted to repair or replacement of defective parts during the warranty period. But the complainant refused to do the same due to the reason best known to him. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the third opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A-1 to A3. Karan Kohli, who is the manager of the third opposite party, filed a proof affidavit in Lieu of Chief Examination. There is no documentary evidence from the side of the third opposite party.
We would like to consider the following points in the evaluation of the complaint and the evidence on record.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable before this commission.
- Whether the complaint had succeeded to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- If so, what are the reliefs and cost
Point number one to three together.
There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased a washing machine from the first opposite party, which the third opposite party manufactures. Exhibit A1 proves that the complainant had paid Rs. 15,000 to the first opposite party for the price of the WHIRLPOOL WM TL CLASSIC 7 KG washing machine on 8-1-2024. The complainant's specific case is that the washing machine became defective within 45 days of purchase, and despite several complaints, the opposite parties did not care to rectify the defects of the washing machine.
The complaint was resisted by the third opposite party, stating that though the complainant registered a complaint after one and half months of purchase, he did not approve an appointment for the service team of the third opposite party to inspect the subject matter washing machine. It is proved by Exhibit A2, which is the screen shot of WhatsApp communication between the complainant and the customer care manager of the third opposite party. On 20-3-2024, the complainant informed him that he had been waiting for more than 40 days to get the washing machine repaired. In reply to that communication, the customer care manager of the third opposite party informed the complaint that they had shared the request with their service team to urgently address the complainant's grievance. Though the third opposite party contended that the complainant did not permit the service team of the third opposite party to inspect the disputed washing machine, they did not adduce any evidence to prove that they had sought an appointment with the complainant to inspect the subject matter washing machine. The third opposite party did not produce any communication either through email, WhatsApp, or SMS, by which they sought an appointment with the complainant to inspect the disputed washing machine. Admittedly, the complainant registered a complaint alleging a defect with the washing machine within one and a half months of its purchase. Usually, the manufacturer of the washing machine offers a one-year warranty for the product. The product manufacturer is bound to provide after-sale service for a newly purchased product within the warranty period. The third opposite party committed a deficiency in service by not providing after-sale service for a newly purchased product that was manufactured by them within a short span of purchase.
Though the complainant prayed for a refund of the price of the washing machine or to replace the same with a new one, he did not adduce any evidence to prove that the washing machine, which was manufactured by the 3rd opposite party and sold by the first opposite party, is having inherent manufacturing defect. The onus to prove the manufacturing defect in the product lies on the complainant with the evidence of an expert. In the absence of any evidence from an expert or report, we cannot hold that the washing machine has inherent manufacturing defects. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate that the washing machine has manufacturing defects, we cannot allow the complainant's prayer to replace the product or refund the price. However, we already found that the third opposite party, who is the manufacturer of the washing machine, had committed deficiency in service by not providing after-sale service to the complainant within the short span of purchase of a new product which is manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. No doubt, being a purchaser of a new washing machine, the complainant had suffered much mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Considering the nature and circumstance of the case and keeping in mind the salutary principles of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, we believe that allowing a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- will meet the ends of justice.
Hence, we allow this complaint in part and hereby direct the third opposite party 1. To cure the defect of the washing machine and deliver to the complainant in a perfect working condition. 2. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing in which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of October, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Original Invoice copy of Ajmal Bismi
A2 - Mail conversation with Whirlpool India
A3 - Outgoing call list
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Nil
By Order,
Assistant Registrar
