IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C. 98/2014 (Filed on 24.07.2014)
Between:
A.R. Gopinatha Pillai,
“Gopika”,
Perunnai West.P.O.,
Changanassery 686 102,
Kottayam District. …. Complainant
And:
Cool Tech Refrigerator,
H.O. Central Tower,
Cross Junction, Thiruvalla – 1,
Rep. by Mr. Abhilash. …. Opposite party.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – 1):
Complainant filed this case against the Opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant have a Semi-Automatic Washing Machine of L.G Company purchased from Changanacherry during 2009 and he had been using it since from its purchase. While so, the said machine stopped its working during the second week of December 2013 and the complainant informed the matter to the dealer and requested him to arrange technicians to check and repair the machine. As per their instruction complainant contacted with the opposite party and the opposite party came and checked the machine and told that the motor of the washing machine is out of order and it needs to be replaced. Opposite party also told that there are two types of motors – one with one year warranty which cost of Rs.2,600/- and the other with a warranty for two years which cost of Rs.3,200/- and he further advised to opt motor with two years warranty which is the best. Complainant selected the second one having two years warranty which costs Rs.3200/-. On the next day opposite party came with the motor selected by the complainant and he installed the motor and collected Rs.3150/- as per their bill No.4919 dated 14.12.2013 and told to keep the bill as the warranty is for 2 years. Thereafter the machine started without load and it showed no complaints.
3. On the next day itself machine become faulty when started with load which was informed to the opposite party. Opposite party told that the belt of the motor needs to be changed and he will do it on the next day. But the opposite party took almost three weeks time to replace the belt and put the machine to work.
4. While so during the end of June 2014 machine again become faulty. Matter was reported to the opposite party. One technician named Mr.Thampi came and checked the machine and informed that the problem is of the capacitor and not the motor. Next day technician again came with a capacitor and connected it, but the motor was not rotating properly. He took back the capacitor and told that the complaint is to the motor and promised to bring the new motor on the next day as there is warranty. But the opposite party did not turned up as promised.
5. Thereafter complainant regularly contacted the opposite party through Telephone and e-mail requesting his urgent attention to repair the machine. But there is no response from the opposite party. Complainant and his wife is suffering from so many health problems. The irresponsible and negligent act of the opposite party caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for replacing the motor of the L.G Company with two years warranty or for getting the amount of motor Rs.3,150/- along with cost of Rs.1500/- and compensation of Rs.200/- per week from July 2014 onwards.
6. In this case opposite party is exparte.
7. On the basis of the pleadings in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
8. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
9. The Point: Complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that he had entrusted the repairing of his washing machine to opposite party on 14-12-2013. Opposite party installed a new motor at a price of Rs.3,150/- with 2 years warranty. But the complaint of the machine was not rectified. Again complainant contacted the opposite party but the opposite party rectified the defect after 3 weeks. During the last week of 30th June 2014 washing machine stopped its working. Technician again checked the machine and told that the problem is of the capacitor and not the motor. Next day technician came with a capacitor and connected it but the washer motor was not rotating properly. He took back the capacitor and told that the complaint is to the motor. He assumed to come back with a new motor. But he did not turned up. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite party is liable to the complainant.
10. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant adduced oral testimony as PW1 and 3 documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext.AI is the cash receipt of Rs.3,150/- dated 14.12.2013 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext .A1(a) is the writing over the bill regarding two years warranty. Ext.A2 is the letter dated 08.07.2014 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. A3 is another letter dated 11.07.2014 issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
11. On a perusal of Ext.A1, it is seen that opposite party received Rs.3,150/- from the complainant for installing a new motor for Rs.3,150/-. Ext.A1(a) is that portion in Ext A1 shows 2 years warranty to the motor. After 6 months, i.e. 30th June, 2014 machine became totally stopped its functioning. From Ext A2 and A3, it is seen that complainant regularly sent mail to the opposite party requesting him to repair the machine. But opposite party did not turned up. Since opposite party is exparte, we find no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s allegation against the opposite party. Therefore the complainants case stands proved as unchallenged. Hence we find that opposite party is liable to the complainant for the non-repairing of the washing machine. Hence this complaint is allowable.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite party is directed to repair the washing machine and to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Five hundred only) as cost to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs.3,150/- (Rupees Three Thousand One hundred and fifty only), cost of the motor along with the compensation and cost ordered hereinabove with 10% interest from today till the realization of whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of September, 2014.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member – I)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix :
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
AI : Cash receipt dated 14.12.2013 for Rs.3,150/- issued by the
opposite party to the complainant.
A1(a) : Writing over the bill regarding two years warranty.
A2 : Letter dated 08.07.2014 issued by the complainant to the opposite
party.
A3 : Letter dated 11.07.2014 issued by the complainant to the opposite
party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) A.R. Gopinatha Pillai, “Gopika”, Perunnai West.P.O.,
Changanassery 686 102, Kottayam District. (2) Mr. Abhilash, Cool Tech Refrigerator, H.O. Central Tower,
Cross Junction, Thiruvalla – 1.
(3) The Stock File.
