BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI D.SINGARA CHARY, B.A., LL.B.,
PRESIDENT.
SRI K.VINODH REDDY, B.Sc.,
MEMBER.
. . .
THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, 2011
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 27 OF 2011
Date of filing: 18-03-2011
Date of Disposal:21-07-2011
Between:
1) K.Pullamma W/o Devaiah, Aged: 55 years, Occ: Business,
2) M.Rajakumar S/o Parashu Ramulu, Age: 21 years, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o H.No.2-2-39, Sandu Bai Bazar, Suryapet Town and
Mandal, Nalgonda District.
…Complainants.
AND
- M/s Chitra Electronics and Furnitures, Opposite to Ganduri Brothers, K.K.Road, Suryapet Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Represented by its proprietor.
- Haier Appliance (India) Private Limited, (A wholly owned subsidiary of Haier Group), B-1/A-14, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110 044. Represented by its Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 11-07-2011, in the presence of Sri P.Shyam Sundar, Advocate for the Complainants, and the Opposite Party No.1 having been set exparte, and the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was dismissed, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI K.VINODH REDDY, MEMBER
1. The Complainants filed this complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the Opposite Parties No.1 and
Contd…2
- 2 -
2 to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards the cost of washing machine they purchased from the Opposite Party No.1; or to substitute the damaged article with new one and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of services.
2. The facts of the case as disclosed from the complaint are as follows:
The Complainant No.1 is the maternal grandmother of the Complainant No.2 and they reside together in Suryapet. On 24-09-2009, the Complainant No.1 purchased a washing machine for a sum of Rs.11,000/- from the Opposite Party No.1 under the bill Ex.A-1. The warranty period is two years. The Opposite Party No.1 issued the warranty card in the name of Complainant No.2 who is no other than the son of the daughter of the Complainant No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 is a manufacturer. On 15-02-2011 the washing machine gave trouble in its functioning and, therefore, the Complainants requested the Opposite Party No.1 to attend to the repairs. The Opposite Party No.1 sent a mechanic, but he could not repair it and on the other hand the washing machine was totally damaged and it is not at all functioning and catering the needs of the Complainants. Inspite of requests, the Opposite Party No.1 paid deaf ear with the result the Complainants are put to much inconvenience.
3. Even though the Opposite Party No.2 was arrayed, notices could not be served this Forum ordered steps for substituted service. Since the Complainants did not take steps to file petition for ordering paper publication, the complaint as against Opposite Party No.2 was dismissed for default by order dated 07-07-2011.
Contd…3
- 3 -
4. The Opposite Party No.1 remained exparte.
5. The Complainant No.1 filed her proof affidavit and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3.
6. The point for consideration is:
Whether there was deficiency of services and if so to what
damages the Complainants are entitled to?
7. POINT:
The proof affidavit filed by the Complainant No.1 and Ex.A-1 prove that the Opposite Party No.1 sold a washing machine on 24-09-2009 for a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the Complainant No.1. Ex.A-2 the warranty card shows that the Opposite Party No.1 issued it infavour of Complainant No.1 mentioning the Complainant No.2 as the customer of the washing machine. The complaint and the proof affidavit of Complainant No.1 show that the Complainant No.2 is the son of the daughter of the Complainant No.1 and both of them are residing together. Therefore, Exs.A-1 and A-2 can be read together even though they are in the names of different persons. Ex.A-2 warranty card shows that the warranty period is 24 months.
8. The affidavit evidence also proves that the washing machine gave troubles on 15-02-2011 and since then it is not working inspite of repairs. The Opposite Party No.1 also did not take steps to get it repaired nor did he provide alternate washing machine. Therefore, it can be held that the Opposite Party No.1 is guilty of deficiency of services.
Contd…4
- 4 -
9. In the circumstances, the Opposite Party No.1 can be directed to refund the cost of the washing machine and also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards deficiency of services and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay to the Complainants a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization along with a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards deficiency of services and Rs.2,000/- towards costs within one month from today. The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was already dismissed by order dated 07-07-2011.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 21st day of July, 2011.
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainants: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of Complainant No.1. None.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainants:
Ex.A-1 Dt.24-09-2009 Original Cash Bill for Rs.11,000/-
issued by Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-2 Dt.24-09-2009 Original Customer Warranty Card.
Ex.A-3 Dt. Brochure of Haier Appliances (India)
Private Limited.
Contd…5
- 5 -
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Opposite Parties:
Nil.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri P.Shyam Sundar,
Advocate for the Complainants.
2). The Opposite Party No.1.
3). The Opposite Party No.2.
