DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 21.12.2022.
CC/256/2022
M.Balasubramanian, - Complainant
S/o.Krishna Menon,
Mangattu House, Parambu Road,
Pudussery Post, Palakkad-678 623.
(By Adv.K.S.Namratha)
VS
1. Bismi Connect Pvt. Ltd, -Opposite Parties
J.P’s Kairali Arcade, 21/80-10,
Near Stadium bus stand,
Palakkad-678 001.
(By Adv.M/s.T.J.Lakshmanan and P.B.Jefin)
2. Uniqare, No.30/253, 1st Floor,
West yakkara, Chungama Jn.,
Palakkad-678 001.
(Rep. by authorised person)
3. BSH House hold Appliances Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.,
Arena House, 2nd Floor,
Main Building, Plot No.103,
Road No.12, MIDC,
Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093.
(OP3 by Adv.M/s.R.Hari Prasanth and R.Mohamed Yakoob)
ORDER
BY SRI. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a Bosch WM wab1616IIN, 6 kg washing machine from the 1st opposite party on 07.04.2018 for an amount of Rs.27,000/-. It had a warranty of two years and 10 years for the motor. When the washing machine stopped functioning, he lodged a complaint with the 2nd opposite party on 07.11.2022 and a technician from the opposite party visited and after inspection told that the drum assembly of the machine is faulty. But as its motor was not functioning he send a mail to the opposite party on 18.11.2022 requesting to give a new washing machine since the damage occurred during the warranty period of the motor. He got a reply on 23.11.2022 stating that if the complainant is ready to pay Rs.13,105/- as repair charges, they will repair the product as the machine has only two year warranty.
On 22.03.2023, he got an offer letter from the 3rd opposite party that if he is ready to transfer an amount of Rs.18,500/- to their account, they will provide him with a new Bosch Washing Machine. But his offer was not acceptable to the complainant. The machine is still not working. The complainant faced mental agony and difficulties due to the acts of the opposite parties. So, he filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to provide him with a new washing machine or refund Rs.27,000/- being its price. He also claims Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the physical and mental strain suffered by him and the cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
3. The 1st opposite party in their version contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. The product in question was purchased by the complainant on 07.04.2018 and he alleges defect in the product after four years from the date of purchase. The product which is manufactured by the 3rd opposite party was purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party according to his own wish and after thoroughly inspecting the product. The 1st opposite party is only a dealer of the product and the after sale service is provided by the manufacturer.
There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. So, the complaint has to be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.
4. The 2nd opposite party in their version contended that the complainant contacted the service centre on 07.11.2022 in connection with the non-functioning of the product. It was immediately attended by their technicians and found that drum assembly of the machine was faulty.
The complainant had used the product for more than four years and seven months. The Tub became defective due to the complainant’s improper usage like prolonged usage of low quality detergents, overloading of machine, not desealing the tub on timely basis etc.
The 2nd opposite party is the authorised service centre of Bosch, following all prescribed guidelines issued by the Bosch household appliances.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and the complaint has to be dismissed against them with their cost.
5. The main contentions raised by the 3rd opposite party in their version is as follows:-
The 3rd opposite party admits that the motor of the washing machine has got 10 years warranty; but the other parts of the machine has only two years warranty.
On the basis of the complaint registered by the complainant on 07.11.2022, the 2nd opposite party, their authorised service centre attended the problem immediately and found the drum assembly of the machine to be faulty. Due to the prevailing post pandemic situation, there was difficulty in getting spare parts from Turkey. So, as a gesture of good will, the opposite party offered the complainant a new washing of model WLJ 2016IIN of 6 kg for special price in accordance with the company policy on receiving the damaged product. This offer was made by this opposite party as an immediate relief during pandemic to provide him best service; but it was not accepted by the complainant. So they, after much difficulty arranged the spare part which became defective and quoted the repair cost of Rs.13,105/- which is also not accepted by the complainant.
They stated that after using the product for more than four years and seven months and after the completion of the warranty of the part which became defective, the complainant has approached the Commission with unclean hands and with an object of unlawful gain on insisting this opposite party for the replacement of the product. The product became defective due to the complainant’s improper usage.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and no mental or physical stress is caused to the complainant due to the acts of this opposite party.
Hence, the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
6. From the pleadings and counter pleadings of parties, the following points were framed for consideration.
1) Whether the opposite parties had provided proper service to the complainant’s washing machine?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4) Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.
7. Eventhough the case was posted to “settlement” on three four occasions, the matter was not settled. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. No objection was raised in marking the documents. The 3rd opposite party filed IA.No.565/2023 to cross examine the complainant and it was allowed. Complainant was examined as PW1. Complainant filed Additional affidavit and Ext.A4 marked. The opposite parties did not filed proof affidavit. Evidence closed. Both parties file notes of argument.
8. Point No.1
The complainant purchased a washing machine of brand ‘Bosch’ which is manufactured by the 3rd opposite party from their dealer, the 1st opposite party on 07.04.2018 for an amount of Rs.27,000/-. Ext.A1 is the Tax invoice dated 07.04.2018 issued by the 1st opposite party showing the purchase. The product has two years warranty and 10 years warranty for the motor. The original warranty card is marked as Ext.A2.
9. According to the complainant, the washing machine stopped functioning and he lodged a complaint with the 2nd opposite party on 07.11.2022. On the basis of the complaint, a service technician visited his house on 09.11.2022 and after inspection informed him that the Drum Assembly of the machine is defective. Ext.A3 is the receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party for the service. On 23.11.2022, the complainant received a mail from the 2nd opposite party that if the complainant is ready to pay the repair cost of Rs.13,105/-, they are ready to repair the product as the warranty is over.
10. The complainant received a mail from the 3rd opposite party on 22.03.2023 stating that if he transfers an amount of Rs.18,500/- to their account, they will provide him with a new washing machine.
The complainant produced the print out of these mails which are marked as Exts.A4(a) and A4(b).
11. As per the E-mail dated 18.11.2022, which is marked as Ext.A4(b), the complainant refused to accept the offer made by the opposite parties. Further, he had stated that the motor of the washing machine is also defective.
12. Since the product warranty is only for two years, in order to replace a defective part after the warranty period, the complainant has to pay the repair cost. Eventhough in the mail dated 09.11.2022, the opposite party had stated that due to Covid 19 pandemic situation, there is difficulty in getting the spare parts in the mail dated 23.11.2022, they informed that they are ready to arrange the spare parts from the company, if the complainant is ready to pay the repair cost.
13. Hence from the evidence adduced, it is clear that on receiving the complaint, the opposite parties immediately attended the product, found out the defect and informed the complainant about the defective part. They further informed him that they will rectify the defect if he is ready to bear the cost. They also made an offer to provide him with a new Washing machine for special price and with warranty of the original product, if the complainant pays the amount demanded by them.
So, the opposite parties had provided proper service to the complainant. Point No.1 is decided in favour of the opposite parties.
12. Point Nos.2 to 4 are considered together
As per the conclusion arrived at in point No.1, the opposite parties had provided proper service to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
The complainant claims that the motor of the machine is defective and it has 10 years warranty and the opposite parties are bound to replace the product or refund the cost of the machine. But he did not take any steps to prove his contention by adducing expert opinion regarding the defect. Even if it is proved, he is only entitled to get the defective part repaired/replaced free of cost and not entitled to replacement of the product or refund of entire amount. In the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the case, we are not inclined to allow the reliefs claimed by the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 17th day of May, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Copy of invoice bill No.1048049 issued by Bismi Connect to be marked.
Ext.A2: Copy of warranty card.
Ext.A3: Copy of service charge bill No.332 dated 09.11.2022.
Ext.A4(a): Copy of mail of Uniquare Service centre to the complainant dated 09.11.2022.
Ext.A4(b): Copy of mail of Uniquare Service centre to the complainant dated 18.11.2022.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1: Balasubramanian, the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : Nil.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
