Date of Filing:31/01/2011

        Date of Order:20/04/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  20^th DAY OF APRIL 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.210 OF 2011

M.s. Manjunath,

S/o. M.s. Subramanaiam,

No.14, 2^nd Cross, SBM Colony,

Mathikere, Bangalore-560 054.                                                         ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1)  The Commercial Manager,

IFB Industries Limited,

Home Appliances Division,

Consumer Care Cell,

# 17, Vishweshwaraiah indl,

Estate Office, Whitefield Road,

Mahadevapura Post,

Bangalore-560 048.

(2) M/s. Supreme Global Services,

(Authorised Service Frechise for IFB

No.1003 Dr, Rajakumar Road, 4^th Block,

Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.                                            …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,304/- are necessary:-

2.       The complainant is using the IFB Front Load washing machine of opposite party No.1 since 1997.  As the complainant is a knowledgeable person he found that, the spin wash became defunct during January-2009.  Hence he called the opposite party No.2 to change the Electronically controlled speed accelerator.  The opposite party No.1 named that part as “soft start unit”, as it accelerate the spin speed slowly and achieve 2500 rpm in 60 seconds.  The second opposite party called on 31.01.2009 and serviced the unit.  The wife of the complainant had met the bill by issuing cheque No.687442 drawn on SBM Mathikere Branch for Rs.2,081/- in the name of the 2^nd opposite party which was encashed by them.  Later on the complainant came to know about the excess billing, went to the second opposite party and obtained the quotation.  He found that the cost of the unit is Rs.496/- only but they have charged Rs.1,800/-.  There is an excess charge of Rs.1,300/-.  The first opposite party has charged service charges of Rs.281/-.  Hence a notice was issued.  The consumer care visited the house of the complainant and informed that they will return the amount, but they forgot to do so.  Hence the complaint.

2.      In this case the opposite party No.2 though served remained absent.  In brief the version of the opposite party No.1 are:-

The complaint is barred by time.  The complainant is having a half knowledge about the working condition of the washing machine had opened up the machine to try and repair it himself and in that process he had damaged various parts including the drum.  When the complainant had taken quotation from Supreme Global Services on 23.03.2009 regarding the cost of the soft start unit, Supreme Global Services had clearly stated that any other part found defective during repair of the washing machine also had to be repaired and accordingly the second opposite party has charged the complainant for the said repair also.  Therefore the complainant cannot allege that the opposite parties had charged extra.  When the washing machine was repaired on 31.01.2009 the complainant was present and he has signed the invoice cum receipt and he was fully aware as to why Rs.2,081/- was collected.  All the allegations are false and denied.

3.       The complainant has filed his reply to the version and stated that it be treated as his evidence and the opposite party No.1 has filed the affidavit and documents.  The arguments were heard. 

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by any of the opposite parties?

2. What Order?

5.      Our findings are:-

Point (A)    :                  In the Negative.

Point (B)    :                  As per the final Order

                                      for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction to the evidence both oral and documentary on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is using IFB Front load washing machine wince 1997.  The complainant never stated, when he has purchased it?  From where he has purchased? what was the warranty or guarantee?  The complaint is as bald as it could be in this regard.

7.       In any event it is established that washing machine had developed certain defects, hence on 31.01.2009 it was taken to repair to the second opposite party and the opposite parties have charged Rs.2,081/- regarding the repair.  The complainant himself has signed the invoice-cum-receipt No.22883, dated: 31.01.2009, for Rs.281/- and invoice-cum-receipt No.3535, dated: 31.01.2009, for Rs.1,800/- regarding soft start unit.

8.       The complainant has stated that he has obtained a quotation from the second opposite party on 23.03.2009 regarding soft start and it was for Rs.496/-.  Hence he contends that the opposite parties have charged excess amount of Rs.1,304/-.  In this regard the opposite parties have contended that the complainant has half knowledge about the washing machine, he himself had opened the machine and because of that there was damage to the drum and they have charged the drum also for all these things they have charged the said amount and it is not for soft start only and the complainant knew it.  Anyway all these allegations and counter have to be gone in to in detail by leading oral and documentary evidences, scrutinization of the same but this cannot be done in a summery way.  If the complainant is aggrieved the complainant has to approach the Civil Court for claiming damages.

9.       Anyway the entire allegation of the complainant is “Supreme Global Services owner and IFB officer are punishable for the Act of cheating” this has to be gone in to only by the Civil Court and not by this Forum.

10.     Here the complainant has not denied the allegations of the opposite party that the complainant himself has opened the machine for repairing himself and while doing so, he had damaged the drum.  The complainant himself contends that he is a knowledgeable man and knows the functioning and things that which part of the machine is not functioning and thus he came to know that spin wash became defunct.  The complainant has never stated what is his qualification? How he came to know about the spin wash was damaged and how it was damaged?  There is no answer.  Here there is no mention how soft start and spin wash are equated to each other.  The opposite parties if have charged excess for any material used then it is not the consumer Forum that has to adjudicate the matter.  The complainant has accepted the charge and paid it and now he cannot turn round and say that they charged excess.  His remedy is elsewhere.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Dismissed.

2.  Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20^th Day of April 2011)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                        PRESIDENT