IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 29th day of October, 2024
Filed on: 01.09.2023
Present
- Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
In
CC/No. 248/2023
between
Complainant:- | Opposite Parties:- |
Sri. Pramod.V.P. 1. Authorized Signatory, Samsung India
Veliyil, Mannanchery.P.O Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 6th Floor
Alappuzha-688538 DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001
(Adv. P.S. Anaghan)
2. Manager, Samsung Authorized Service Centre
Elegant Service, Near St. Mary’s School
21/57 D, 21/57 E, Avalookkunnu.P.O,
Alappuzha-688006
(Exparte)
3. Manager, Nandilath G Mart,
No. 44/1065 A, Nehru Bhavan,
New Bazar, Alappuzha-688001
(Adv. Azeem Mohammed)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLY.P.R (PRESIDENT IN CHARGE)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. Brief case of the complainant’s case is as follows: -
Complainant had purchased a Samsung front load washing machine on 28/5/2016 from 3rd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 26,600/- having warranty for 3 years. Besides that the complainant availed an extended warranty for 2 years by paying an amount of Rs. 6,606/-. During the warranty period the said product underwent service till 27/5/2022. Subsequently within one week the machine became defuncted and serviced incurring an amount of Rs. 6200/-. After one year the service centre obtained an amount of Rs. 410/- for inspecting the defect of the machine and informed that the particular defective part was not available for which the complainant sent the bill of the machine through whatsapp message. As there was no further action taken by the opposite parties, the complainant approached 3rd opposite party whereby they provided phone number of one Mr. Amal John who is none other than the representative of the company and the complainant intimated the problem to the said person. But nothing moved from the side of opposite parties 1 and 2 for providing the parts of the machine, through the complainant is willing to purchase the same for money from his pocket. For the said washing machine having 10 years warranty for its motor , an amount of Rs. 33,616/- spent by the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties the complaint filed for providing parts to the washing machine to become functioning along with compensation and cost.
2. In response to the complaint opposite parties 1 and 3 filed separate version. Opposite party No. 2 remain exparte as not responded even accepting the notice in this complaint.
3. Version of 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. In the Samsung washing machine if some defects are noticed, that will not automatically come within the meaning of manufacturing defect and there may be possibility for that defect due to mishandling, improper handling, or any other reasons also which could be rectified, and that is why, the Consumer Protection Act contemplates, expert opinion when the defect is not visible. When the complainant raised complaint regarding power issue in the washing machine after 7 years of usage of the said unit, the service engineer inspected the said unit and found that PCB faulty. Repairing the PCB is not possible because the part is not accessible. Out of good will gesture this opposite party offered refund of the said unit but the same was denied by the complainant. There was no manufacturing defects in the washing machine.
4. Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant had purchased Samsung washing machine on 28/5/2023, Serial No. 03845PBH300525P and Model No. WF600U0BHWQ/TL at a consideration of Rs.26,600/-. As per the complainant he alleged that the said washing machine was not working properly but suppressed the support which he received from the opposite party.
5. The complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts just to misguide the Commission. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty, replacement or refund of washing machine in case of physical damages/mishandling of the washing machine and out of warranty period or providing compensation was not mentioned in the warranty card.
6. The 1st opposite party is willing to carry out the necessary repairs and replacement of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual. There was neither any deficiency in rendering service, on the part of 1st opposite party nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice, therefore 1st opposite party is not liable to refund/replace/provide compensation for the said washing machine as the parts are not available.
7. Version of 3rd opposite party is as follows:-
Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. After purchasing the Washing Machine the same was installed by technician of 2nd opposite party and the complainant fully satisfied as found the product defect free and in working condition. Three years warranty was supplied by the 1st opposite party and 2 years extended warranty was purchased from 2nd opposite party and the same was expired on 27/5/2021, but not on 27/5/2022. The 3rd opposite party was not aware of the extended warranty purchased by the complainant.
8. Once the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party with a complaint of the washing machine for which the 3rd opposite party registered a complaint with 2nd opposite party and they rectified the same. Thereafter the complainant communicated with opposite parties 1 and 2 directly and never approached 3rd opposite party. There is no deficiency in service from the part of 3rd opposite party. After using the washing machine for a pretty long time and after the expiry of warranty period the complainant demanding compensation is ill motive and there is nothing defective as manufacturing defect to the machine. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. On the above pleadings following points that arise for consideration :-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief sought for in the complaint?
3. Reliefs and costs?
10. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A10 on the side of complainant. No oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on the side of opposite parties. Heard both sides.
11. Point No. 1 and 2:-
PW1 is the complainant in this case . He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A10. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice of the product and Ext.A2 is the tax invoice for the extended warranty of the same. Ext.A3 , Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 are tax invoice issued by 2nd opposite party for the repairing and inspection of the disputed washing machine. Ext.A6 to A9 are the email communication between the complainant and 1st opposite party with regard to the complaint of the product and it s rectification. Ext.A10is the copy of image of warranty details of the product.
12. Complainant’s case is that when his washing machine was became defuncted during the warranty period of its motor, the opposite parties did not provide the spare for the parts for making the same in working condition. It is alleged by the 1st opposite party, manufacturing company that there is no deficiency in service on their part as there was no manufacturing defect found/ detected by any expert opinion. 3rd opposite party also disputed the deficiency on their part since the 3rd opposite party intimated the alleged complaint of the disputed washing machine to the 2nd opposite party and they rectified the defect of the washing machine and thereafter opposite parties 1 and 2 dealt with the matter with the complainant directly. The 2nd opposite party did not filed a version in response of the allegation leveled against them.
13. Admittedly there is some defect occurred in the washing machine purchased by the complainant from 3rd opposite party, which is manufactured by 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party is the authorized service provider. It is also admitted that the said defect was happened after completing the warranty period of standard warranty and extended warranty. According to the complainant he needs the spare of the defective parts of the disputed washing machine on payment of its purchase cost.
14. It is to be noted that the motor of the disputed washing machine itself having warranty for 10 years as shown in Ext.A10.
15. Supreme Court ruled out that manufacturers are not required to replace a product if there is no major manufacturing defect. However, they can be held liable if they fail to provide necessary spare parts or intentionally with hold them.
16. In the said circumstance the manufacturers are expected to make spare parts and consumables available during the product’s expected lifespan, especially a common man does not purchase a product only for a short span of time for abandoning the same while it became defuncted. In the present case the complainant spent a total amount of Rs. 38,916/- for purchasing the disputed washing machine and for its further servicing. The complainant also did not claimed any manufacturing defect of the product, he only needs the spare of the defective parts of the washing machine and also willing to pay the cost of the same. In the above discussion we found that it is inevitable to provide the spare parts within the expected life span of the product and non-supply of the spare parts can be construed as deficiency in service from the part of a manufacturer. Hence the 1st opposite party is held liable to redress the grievance of the complainant. These points are answered accordingly.
17. Point No. 3:-
In the result complaint stands allowed in part in the following terms:-
1. 1st opposite party is directed to provide spare parts for repairing the disputed washing machine for making the same in working condition.
2. . 1st Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for mental agony.
3. Complainant is entitled Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings from 1st opposite party.
The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission this the 29th day of October, 2024.
Sd/- Smt.P.R Sholy (President-In-Charge)
Sd/- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Pramod. V. P (complainant)
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice 28/5/2016
Ext.A2 - Tax Invoice
Ext.A3 to A5 - Tax Invoice
Ext.A6 to A9 - Email communications between complainant and 1st OP
Ext.A10 - Copy of Image of warranty details.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
