C.C filed on:02.12.2015

 Disposed on:25.08.2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF AUGUST –  2016

C.C. No. 135 OF 2015

:PRESENT:

SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL LLM. PRESIDENT,

SRI. D. SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A. LLB,  MEMBER

SMT. GIRIJA, B.A. LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S:

R.Nataraj, Ward No.2,

2^nd Cross, Jyothinagar,

Sira – 572 137.

Tumkur District.

(In-person)

-V/s-

OPPOSITE PARTY/IES

1.       IFB Industries Limited,

          14, Taratolla Road,

          Kolkata – 700 088.

2.       SLN Enterprises,

          (Authorized Service Center for IFB)

          Opp. Srinivasa Nursing Home,

          SS Circle, B.H.Road, Tumkur.

3.       A.R.Narendra Babu

          Proprietor,

          Vishwas Enterprises,

          Main Road, Sira – 572 137.

(OP No.1 - By Sri/Smt.  B.L.Chandrashekar -  Advocate)

(OP Nos. 2 & 3 – In Persons)

:-O R D E R:-

SMT. GIRIJA - MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OPS alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPS and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to give new washing machine in place of old washing machine or to pay Rs.19,500/- which he has paid to purchase the washing machine in question and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards travelling expenses and cost.

The brief facts of the complaint is as under:-

2.       The complainant submitted that on 06.01.2012 he has purchased the washing machine Model No.Serena 5.5Kg/Serena Sx5.5Kg, Sl.No.10-20-33 which was manufactured by IFB Company and the said washing machine had four years guarantee. 

          The complainant further submitted that after two years from the date of purchase, the washing machine got started belatedly and suddenly stopped in the middle and thereafter started belatedly and due to that the said machine got repaired for 3-4 times from IFB Authorized S.L.N.E. Center, Tumkur. 

          The complainant further submitted that recently i.e. on 02.03.2015 tube of the washing machine was changed and for this the OP has charged Rs.280/- vide bill No.122205 and thereafter due to harsh sound and shaking in the machine the complainant complained the OP about the said defects and as per the advice of the mechanic of SLNE, Tumkur the damps of the machine was changed for Rs.1,020/- vide bill No.12958/-.

          The complainant further submitted that thereafter some months the above said problem repeated and the complainant complained the same to the OPS, but the OPS did not set right the problem.  Hence, the complainant filed this complaint.   

3.       Upon service of version notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed its version.  The OP No.2 appeared in person, but not filed its version and affidavit in spite of giving sufficient opportunities.   The OP No.3 appeared in person and filed his version, but later-on he did not file his affidavit evidence after giving sufficient opportunities to him.   Hence, without affidavit evidence, the version of the OP No.3 cannot be considered.

          In the version, the OP No.1 submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eye of law.  The OP No.1 further submitted that there is no deficiency of service and thereby the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under the C.P.Act.   The OP No.1 denied all the allegations made in the complaint against the OP No.1 is false and that among other grounds the OP No.1 requested to dismiss the complaint with cost.     

4.       The complainant and OP No.1 filed their affidavit evidence. The complainant and OP No.1 have not marked the documents though produced.     Heard the arguments, then posted the case for orders.

5.       Based on the above materials, the following issues will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPS as alleged by the complainant?

2. What Order?   

6.       Our answer to the above issues are as under:-

Issue No (1)          :        In the Affirmative

Issue No (2)                    :        As per final order below

                         :-REASONS:-

Issue Nos.(1) & (2):-

7.       On perusal of  tax/sale invoice produced by the complainant, it is seen that the complainant has purchased SERENA sX5.5 KG (IFB – Washing Machine) Sl.No.102033 from OP No.3 on 06/01/2012.  Further, we have perused invoice cum receipt pertaining to SLN Enterprises (Authorized Service Center for IFB) i.e. OP No.2, wherein it is seen that on 02.03.2015 the OP No.2 has charged Rs.280/- for P-Tub house and further on 19/06/2015 the OP No.2 has charged Rs.1,020/- for Damp’s and Desal.  On the above it is clear that the OP No.2 has repaired the washing machine of complainant on 02/03/2015 and 19/06/2015.

8.       Further, in the complaint copy the complainant has stated after two years from the date of purchase the machine did not start and hence he complained to IFB Authorized service center S.L.N.E. and the machine got repaired by the said center 3-4 four times.  But in this regard the complainant has not produced any document to show that the machine is not working properly after two years from the date of purchase.  On perusal of invoice cum receipt of the service center it is seen that the machine got repaired only on 02.03.2015 i.e. after three years two months.  No doubt, the washing machine has four years warranty from the date of purchase.  Further, it is not in dispute that the OP No.2 has repaired the washing machine of the complainant on 02.03.2015 and 19/06/ 2015 and charged Rs.280/- and Rs.1,020/- and acted as per the warranty. 

9.       Further, it is contended by the complainant that after repair of the washing machine by changing Damps of the washing machine by the mechanic of OP No.2 on 19/06/2015, the washing machine suddenly stopped while running by making huge noise and thereafter he complained the same to the OP No.2, thereafter another mechanic of OP No.2 came and after checking the washing machine told that damps need to be changed as the same is not working properly and hence the complainant again complained the same to the OP No.2, but the OP No.2 did not respond to the same and thereby the complainant filed this complaint with a request to direct the OPS to give new washing machine or price of the washing machine which was paid by him. 

10.     No, doubt the washing machine has run without problem for three years from the date of purchase.  It is also not in dispute that the OP No.2 has repaired the washing machine of the complainant twice i.e. on 02.03.2015 and 19/06/2015. Further, it is also not in dispute that the washing machine has four years warranty.  So, under the circumstances, it is just and proper to direct the OPS to repair the washing machine of the complainant without any cost and make it in good running condition.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:- 

: O R D E R :

1.       The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in the part with cost of Rs.2,000/-.

2.       The OPS are directed to repair the washing machine of the complainant without any cost and make it in good running condition.

3.       The OPS are further directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of knowledge/communication of the order, failing which the OPS are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- together with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of complaint to till realization.   

4.       Supply free order copy to the parties.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, then corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th Day of AUGUST 2016).

LADY MEMBER                    MEMBER                  PRESIDENT   

TSS