BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.36/2012

Dated this the 19^th day of May 2015.

R. Sachithanantha Kumar, S/o.Ramasamy

No.13, Mariamman Koil Street, Muthupillaipalayam

Reddiarpalayam Post, Puducherry-10.                            ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. Danam Sale Centre,

    Rep. by its Manager

    No.225, Ambalathadiyar Madam Street

    Pondicherry-1.

2. Sri Manakular Electronics

    (Authorised Service Franchisee)

    Rep. by its Proprietor Mahalingam

    No.10, 2^nd Cross, West Brindavan

    Pondicherry-13.

3. IFB Industries Limited,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    Plot No.IND-5, Sector-1

    East Calcutta Township,

    Calcutta- 700 078.                                                          ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                                :  Thiru.R.Soupramanien, Advocate.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:  OP.1            :   Thiru.S.S.Thanasekaran, Advocate.

                                                             OP.2& 3  :   Thiru.R.Thiroumalvalavan

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. Pass an order directing the opposite parties to replace the IFB-AW60-8061 6Kg. washing machine free from any defect or to refund of Rs.11,500/- (Rupees eleven thousand and five hundred only).
2. Pass an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.63,500/- as compensation under section 14(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection At,
3. To pass order to award cost
4. To pass such other suitable orders as this Forum deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant has purchased a washing machine under model No.I.F.B. AW60-8061-6 Kg from the first opposite party vide bill No.4/02035 dated 27.08.2010 with two years warranty. The second opposite party installed the machine on 03.09.2010.  The machine worked for few months from the date of purchase, later it got struck off on the ground that the water did not drain out from the machine.  The complainant contacted the second opposite party with great difficulties, who came and set right the machine after several requests. Again on 18.11.2011 the machine has not drained the water at the first wash itself. Immediately took out the clothes from the machine and contacted the second opposite party wherein he directed the complainant to report the fault to IFB customer care, the third opposite party herein.  The third opposite party registered the complaint and gave the complaint No.7656902 and docket no.2439991.   The complainant waited for more than four days and against contacted the third opposite party on 22.11.2011 regarding the status of the complaint. The third opposite party assured that they would rectify the problem through second opposite party.  Later on 23.11.2011 once again contacted the second opposite party, who replied that he would send the service mechanic.  

3.         The complainant submitted that he was put under severe mental stress and agony, he got the service mechanic only on 24.11.2011 till then the water inside the washing machine remained stagnant from 18.11.2011.  On 24.11.2011 the service mechanic reported that retractor got damaged. The service mechanic assured to bring the spare and rectify the problem but he did not turned up.  Subsequently the complainant contacted him on 25.11.2011, 26.11.2011, 28.11.2011 (morning and evening) continuously.  But the second opposite party not even cared to rectify the problem till 02.11.2011.  On the evening of 02.11.2011, the service mechanic came and replaced the retractor.  The complainant and his family members were put to severe mental agony due to sub-standard product sold by the first opposite party as well as service rendered by second and third opposite parties.  The service rendered by the second and third opposite parties tantamount to deficiency and gross negligence. The complainant was constrained to issue notice dated 05.01.2012 to the opposite parties wherein the first opposite party gave evasive reply on 09.03.2012 and the second and third opposite parties have acknowledged the receipt of notice and did not give any reply.  Hence this complaint.

4.         The averments narrated in the reply version filed by the first opposite party is as follows:

            This opposite party denies all the averments made out in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased the complaint referred washing machine with the two years warranty.   The complaint relating to the washing machine has to be made only with the second opposite party who is the authorised service franchisee of the third opposite party.   Even in the complaint the complainant has made complaint only with the second and third   opposite party, hence this respondent is, in no way, liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and this opposite party is not at all necessary party to this proceeding.  Even to the notice issued by the complainant, this opposite party has given a clear reply notice on 09.03.2012 itself.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

5.         The averments narrated in the reply version filed by the second opposite party being adopted by the third opposite party is as follows:

            This opposite parties denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version. The complainant has not made out a clear case so as to bring the matter within the rule of this Forum.  There is no negligence on its part.  The opposite party is manufacturer of various home products like washing machine, dish washer, micro oven in the brand name of IFB which is a leading brand in the Indian consumer market.  On 27.08.2010, the complainant purchased the IFB washing machine model No.AW 60-8061 for Rs.11,500/- and the service engineers of this opposite party installed the machine on 03.09.2010 and have given the necessary instructions in using the washing machine.  The complainant has not given any details of the defects in the washing machine till date although he has made a bald allegations that the machine is not working properly.  On receiving summons from this Forum, the opposite party had made several checks on the machine and particularly on 07.10.2013 the machine was checked in the house of the complainant and found to be in a proper working condition.   Hence pray to dismiss the complaint with cost.

6.         On the side of the complainant, no oral evidence adduced and filed documents and not marked the same.  On the side of third opposite party, one V.Praveen Kumar, Area Service Manager filed chief examination with documents and not cross examined by the complainant.

7.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties are attributed any deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

8.         Point No.1:

            The complainant has purchased a washing machine under model No.IFB AW60-8061 from the first opposite party vide document no.1, the bill No.4/02035 dated 27.08.2010 for valid consideration of Rs.11,500/-. The second opposite party is the authorised service franchisee and the third opposite party is the manufacturer.  Hence the complainant is the consumer for the opposite parties.

9.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the complaint and documents 1 to 5 filed by the complainant, the reply version filed by the opposite parties, the chief examination and document filed by the third opposite party.  The complainant did not adduce any oral evidence and not marked the documents and not cross examine the RW.1/OP.3.

10.       From the records, it is clear that there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the washing machine from the opposite parties by the complainant.  The allegation made by the complainant is that the washing machine purchased from the first opposite party got struck off on the ground that the water did not drain out from the machine after a few months and set right the machine after several request.  The complainant further submits that again on 18.11.2011 the machine has not drained the water at the first wash itself.  The complainants submits that the second opposite party has sent the mechanic and find out that the retractor has got damaged  and assured to replace the parts, but the mechanic did not turned up.  The complainant contacted the second opposite party on 25.11.2011, 26.11.2011, 28.11.2011 and not cared by the second opposite party,   but on 02.12.2011 the second opposite party has changed the retractor.  The complainant further submits that due to sufferings caused due to the sub-standard product, issued legal notice dated 05.01.2012 to the opposite party and the first opposite party gave evasive reply.  The second and third opposite party have acknowledged the receipt of same and did not give any reply.  The complainant prays for compensation.

11.       The first opposite party in the reply version clearly denied all the allegation and submits that the complainant made allegation only with the second and third opposite parties and not against the first opposite party and as such the first opposite party is not at all necessary party to the proceedings and issued reply notice to the complainant.  The opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint against them.

12.       The second opposite party filed reply and adopted by the third opposite party stated that the complainant was using the machine and the same was working in a good condition and the complainant has not given any details of the defects in the washing machine till date.  The second and third opposite party submits that on receiving the summons from this Forum they made several checks on the machine  and particularly on 07.10.2013 it was found to be in a proper working condition.  The second and third opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint.

13.       From the above facts, it is clear that the complainant did not adduce any oral evidence and not filed any proof that the machine had vital problem.  The allegation made by the complainant did not substantiate by reliable evidence.  The mere sending of the legal notice to the opposite parties alone is not enough to prove the case of the complainant.  The burden of proof is in the hands of the complainant.  The third opposite party field the affidavit in chief examination.  The complainant did not choose to cross examine the RW.1.  The RW.1 relied the job sheet that the third opposite party has checked the machine on 07.10.2013 to the satisfaction of the complainant and found correct.  The opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint.  

14.       Therefore the complainant failed to prove his case with tangible evidence.  The opposite parties have denied the allegation with evidence and disproved the case of the complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency in service attributed against the opposite parties by the complainant.

15.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision arrived in point no.2, this complaint is deserves for dismissal.  Hence this complaint is hereby dismissed. No cost.

Dated this the 19^th day of May 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS WITNESS:  Nil

OPPOSITE PARTYS WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS DOCUMENTS         :           Unmarked Document no.1 to 5

OPPOSITE PARTYS DOCUMENTS :              Unmarked Document No.1

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER