By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant had purchased a washing machine on 02/03/2018. On 03/03/2022 the said washing machine occurred defect. Then the complainant registered a complaint with the manufacturer of the washing machine. On 11/03/2022 the technician of the manufacturer came and inspected the refrigerator. After inspection PCB of the washing machine was replaced and Rs 6,455/- was paid for the same. But complaint was continued and clothes were not drained off. Subsequently the complainant contacted the service center as a result the technician came and replace PCB once again. Unfortunately defects of the washing machine continued. After five days of time the washing machine was taken in to the service center of the opposite party. After two days it was informed by the opposite party that shaft of the washing machine became defective. So it is averred by the complainant that he had made specific instruction to the opposite party that the opposite party should not replace shaft without securing former consent from the complainant. It was agreed by the opposite party that replacement of shaft would be done only after securing consent from the complainant. But, unfortunately, the opposite party replaced shaft of the washing machine without permission of the complainant. When the complainant made objection to the acts of the opposite party it was required by the opposite party that they are ready to take back the shaft from the washing machine. It is alleged by the complainant that when he demanded to show the removed shaft of the washing machine the opposite party shown another old shaft. So the complainant directed to take shaft off from the washing machine a black mark was noticed on it. When the complainant enquired the reason for black mark on the shaft it was happened at the time of welding and same would not be noticed by anybody else if it fitted in the washing machine. But when he demanded to show the working condition of the washing machine the opposite party informed that there is some complaint to the PCB. As per direction from the side of the opposite party the complainant contacted the opposite party and taken back the washing machine after making payment of Rs.1,675/-. But after its installation at home it was found by the complainant that defects are continued in the same as in the past. The complainant again contacted the opposite party. The opposite party directed to replace the PCB again but the complainant instructed to replace the motor of the washing machine. But it was informed by the opposite party that motor of the washing machine would be available from the company. After 4 days of time the opposite party came in to the new motor but motor was found defective. Later the opposite party replaced PCB and motor with new ones. When the complainant attempted to use the machine a black colour was noticed inside the drum. Even though the complainant repeatedly contacted the manufacturer the complaints remained unrectified. But when he contacted the opposite party it was reported by the opposite party defects cannot be rectified. The act of the opposite party caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. So the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the mental agony financial loss and cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. The opposite party denied allegations raised by the complainant. It is admitted by the opposite party that they are the authorized service center of the manufacturer of the washing machine, Samsung Company. It is contended that after the expiry of warranty the customer are bound to take charges for their services. The washing machine purchased by the complainant was installed on 03/03/2018. All parts of the washing machine was provided with warranty of 3 years. But motor of the washing machine would carrying 10 years warranty. It is admitted by the opposite party that their technician contacted the complainant on 11/03/2022 with a new PCB as per the request of the complainant. It is contended by the opposite party that on the inspection it was found that washing machine was undergone services from an unauthorized service centre. The repair work was carried out after the expiry of warranty so PCB was replaced after receiving an amount of Rs.6,455/-. After one month the complaint again contacted the opposite party and made complaints of defective functioning of the machine. Then the technician of the opposite party again contacted the complainant and replacing PCB as defect of the PCB was found within 3 months of warranty period. It is contended that the opposite party already informed that there is possibility of defect to the washing machine as bearing of the machine was done with the help of an unauthorized service Centre. It is also contended that satisfaction of the complainant was recorded at the time of replacement of PCB of the second time. On 09/04/2022 the complainant again contacted the opposite party and complaint of huge sound from the machine at the time of its functioning so machine was taking in to service center for examination. So it was found in the inspection shaft of the drum was broken causing abnormal sound. So the complainant came to the service center the opposite party made him convince the defects of the shaft. But the complainant was not willing to replace drum and shaft together as cost of the same will to come to the tune Rs.6,000/-. But the complainant opted for replacement of shaft only for Rs. 1,675/-. The opposite party convinced the complainant that shaft had to be removed from the drum by heating three screws. The complainant had given approval for the same. So with the permission of the complaint shaft was removed and affix a new shaft by welding. When the complainant approached for taking back the machine from the service center. The complainant expressed his doubt over the replacement of shaft. So the opposite party was compel to remove the shaft drum inured to convince the replacement of new shaft. Moreover the opposite party was also convinced the reason for change in the colour. According to the opposite party black colour was seen due to its welding. After convincing entire facts the complainant paid Rs. 1,675/- and the washing machine was delivered to him after rectifying its defects. There was no defects occurred to the PCB as alleged and no instruction was given to the complainant to come back on the next day. It is admitted by the opposite party that after 4 days of its delivery they had replaced motor of the washing machine without receiving any charges. No attempt was made by the opposite party to use an old motor in the washing machine. There is no such incident happen as stated in the complaint that black colour was seen in the drum and complaint was submitted before the opposite party, but no steps were taken by the opposite party to rectify the colour change. It is contended by the opposite party that the complainant had kept an enimical term with the opposite party as the opposite party had denied the proposal of the complainant to replace some of the parts of the washing machine under the coverage warranty of any washing machine owned by other customers. It is also contended that the opposite party did not know the language problem faced by the complainant in contacting the customer care centre of the manufacturer. It is contended by the opposite party that there is non-joinder of necessary party in the proceedings as the manufacturer should have impleaded. Hence the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and the opposite party have filed affidavits in lieu of evidence. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 to A9 documents. Ext.A1 document is the copy of email communication dated 04/05/2022 at 11.02 pm made by the manufacturers of the washing machine. Ext. A2 document is the copy of email communication dated 02/05/2022 at 10.40 am made by the manufacturer with the complainant. Ext.A3 document is the copy of email communication dated 05/05/2022 11.41 pm. Ext. A4 document is the copy of email communication dated 22/04/2022 12.07 made by the manufacturer of the washing machine with the complainant. Ext. A5 document is the copy of email communication dated 02/05/2022 9.47 am made by the manufacturer of the washing machine with the complainant. Ext. A6 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 14/04/2022 issued by the opposite party at the time of supply of goods and services. Ext. A7 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 11/03/2022 issued by the opposite party at the time of supply of goods and service. Ext. A8 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 02/03/2018 issued by Kannankandy fridge centre , Perinthalmanna. Ext A9 document is the photo copy of the photographs of the black mark seen in the drum of the washing machine owned by the complainant. The opposite party did not produce any document to support his contentions made in the complaint.
5. Heard both sides in detail. Perused documents and affidavits. The Commission considered following points to adjudicate the matter.
- Whether the act of the opposite party is amount to deficiency in service?
- Relief and cost?
6. The Commission is considering the above said points together for the sake of brevity. The gist of the allegation made against the opposite party is that the opposite party had done repair work and fitting of shaft in the drum of the washing machine in a defective manner causing black mark inside the drum. It is further alleged that the fitting was done without obtaining permission of the complainant. According to the complainant the act of the opposite party caused mental agony inconvenience as well as financial loss. The complainant has produced Ext. A8 document to prove the purchase of washing machine. Ext. A9 document is produced by the complainant to prove the black mark in the drum occurred due to the defective repair of the opposite party. The complainant had narrated a series of occurrence of defects to the parts of the washing machine. It is admitted fact that alleged incidence were happened after expiry of warranty period. On 03/03/2022 the washing machine became defective on 11/03/2022 the opposite party came and replaced PCB and collected Rs. 6,455/-. Ext. A7 documents is produced in that regard. After the replacement of PCB defects were continued the washing machine did not function properly. It is pleaded by the complainant that the opposite party contacted the complainant only after three days of time after registering the complaint. Thus the PCB of the washing machine again replaced but defect continued. The opposite party collected the washing machine from the complainant for repair later the opposite party suggested to replace shaft of the washing machine. It is alleged by the complainant that he had given a specific direction to the opposite party to secure permission from the complainant before its replacement but shaft was replaced without securing permission from the complainant.The complainant produced Ext. A6 document to show the replacement of shaft.
7. Argued by the complainant that their repair work was not properly done and a black colour was seen inside the drum. The complainant alleged poor quality work against the opposite party.
8. It has come out in evidence that the motor of the washing machine became defective. The opposite party admitted defect of the motor. At the same time replacement of the motor was done by the opposite party without collecting any charges. But the complainant argued that the opposite party did not take any step to rectify the damage occurred due to black colour seen inside the drum of the washing machine.
9 On the other hand the opposite party argued that there was non-joinder of necessary party in the proceedings. It is argued that manufacturer of the washing machine need to be impleaded in the proceedings for just and proper decision of the case. But the Commission find that there is no merit in the argument of the complainant. The complainant did not plead that the product suffers manufacturing defect. Moreover the product was purchased on 02/03/2018 as per Ext. A8 document. Both parties admitted that warranty coverage was expired. Admittedly the complainant had remitted Rs. 6,455/- for replacement of PCB as per Ext.A7 document. The Commission find that entire pleadings of the complainant revolved around services provided by the opposite party. It can be seen from the evidence that on a number of occasions the opposite party had attended the complaints of washing machine to rectify the defects. The Commission find that the opposite party was utterly fail to identify and resolve the complaints of the washing machine. On 11/03/2022 PCB of the washing machine replaced but within a short span of time PCB was replaced due the defects of the earlier one. Again shaft of the washing machine became defective and same was replaced as per Ext.A7 document. One of the allegation of the complainant was that replacement of the shaft was done without availing permission from the complainant. Even though the opposite party argued that prior sanction was secured from the complainant but no proof was adduced in that regard. The Commission find that the opposite party replaced shaft without permission of the complainant.Ext.A6 document is the receipt dated 14/04/2022 issued at the time of replacement of shaft. Ext. A6 document would show that same is issued at the time of supply of goods and services provided by the opposite party to the complainant but same would not state whether the complainant had given permission to replace the shaft. It was incumbent upon the opposite party to secure permission from the complainant to carry out the identified defects of the product owned by complainant. There was no case from the side of the opposite party that a written work order was secured from the complainant for replacement of shaft of the washing machine. So the act of replacement of shaft by the opposite party without obtaining prior sanction is amounted to deficiency in service. Moreover even at the time of replacement of shaft and its related services the opposite party had failed to detect the effect of the motor of the washing machine. Ext. A1 to A5 documents would also suggest that the opposite party was negligently behaved in resolving the complaints of the washing machine. Even though the opposite party argued that the washing machine was used carelessly as well as it was kept idle for a long time are the causes of complaints. But the Commission find that the opposite party did not adduce any evidence to prove his above said contentions. Moreover the complainant had done wiring of the machine by using authorized service center. But the complainant also fail to adduce evidence on that aspect. The complainant alleged that the black colour inside the drum was caused due to defective fitting of the shaft. The opposite party had admitted in the version that such black colour was result of welding of shaft with drum of the washing machine. But the opposite party fail to adduce evidence with respect to his contention that the black coloring was un usual incident happened at the time of welding of shaft. In this juncture the Commission find that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. The act of the opposite party has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.
10 The complainant had prayed for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the opposite party for the sufferings of financial loss mental agony and cost of the proceeding. But the Commission find that the amount claimed by the complainant is a exorbitant amount comparing to the loss and damage sustained to the complainant. The Commission consider that there should be parity between the compensation and the damage sustained to the complainant. The proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot be used for making unlawful enrichment. The Commons consider that the opposite party is liable to make compensation in a reasonable manner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship. Moreover the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings. In the light of the discussion made above the complaint is allowed in the following manner:-
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till date of realisation
Dated this 29th day of April, 2024.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A9
Ext.A1: Copy of email communication dated 04/05/2022 at 11.02 pm made by the
manufacturer of the washing machine.
Ext.A2: Copy of email communication dated 02/05/2022 at 10.40 am made by the
manufacturer with the complainant.
Ext A3: Copy of email communication dated 05/05/2022 11.41 pm.
Ext A4: Copy of email communication dated 22/04/2022 12.07 made by the
manufacturer of the washing machine with the complainant.
Ext A5: Copy of email communication dated 02/05/2022 9.47 am made by the
manufacturer of the washing machine with the complainant.
Ext.A6: Copy of tax invoice dated 14/04/2022 issued by the opposite party at the time
of supply of goods and services.
Ext.A7: Copy of tax invoice dated 11/03/2022 issued by the opposite party at the time
of supply of goods and service.
Ext A8: Copy of tax invoice dated 02/03/2018 issued by Kannankandy fridge centre ,
Perinthalmanna.
Ext A9: Photo copy of the photographs of the black mark seen in the drum of the
washing machine owned by the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
