BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 15^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) seeking direction to the OPs to pay him compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and to return the washing machine in a functional condition together with cost of the proceedings.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The grandfather of complainant by name D.Muniraju, had purchased a Samsung Washing machine on 04.04.2008 at Adishwar India Ltd., Rajajinagar, Bangalore.  After purchasing the same, it was not working properly for one or the other reasons and on 04.09.2013 the complainant requested OP-1 for repairs and accordingly on 06.09.2013 OP-1 took away the Washing machine for repairs.  After having taken the Washing machine, till today OP-1 has not returned the Washing machine after attending the repairs, despite several requests made by the complainant in person as well as over phone.

Though the warranty period is over the manufacturing defects continued since the OP-1 did not return the Washing machine despite several requests by the complainant.  The complainant has been put to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony for which OP-1 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  When OP-1 failed to return the washing machine after repairs despite repeated requests, the complainant got issued a legal notice to both OPs on 02.12.2013.  Despite the said notice, OPs failed to respond and return the washing machine.  Therefore, the complainant was compelled to approach this Forum.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing the OPs to pay him compensation of Rs,10,000/- for deficiency in service and to return the Washing machine in a functional condition together with cost of litigation.

3. Despite service of notice, OP-1 failed to appear and contest the complaint.  OP-2 entered appearance through his advocate and filed version contending in brief are as under:

The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint since he has not purchased the said Washing machine and also has not been authorized by the purchaser of the said Washing machine to file this complaint and prosecute the same.  On verification with the OP-1, OP-2 came to know that after having received the Washing machine for repairs, the repairs were carried out by replacing certain parts and the complainant was asked over phone to collect the Washing machine by paying repair charges of Rs.12,601/-.  However, the complainant for the reasons best known to him has not collected the washing machine, by paying the repair charges.  The washing machine is not within the warranty period, therefore, OP-2 is not responsible for any defects in the said Washing machine and the complainant is liable to pay charges for replacement of the spare parts and for repairs.  The complainant has come up with false complaint with an intention to make wrongful gain at the cost of the OPs.

For the aforesaid reasons, OP-2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint filed his affidavit evidence when called upon reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  OP-2 filed the affidavit evidence of one Srinivas Joshi, Senior Manager, in support of the averments made in the version.  Both the parties have submitted their written submissions.  Both the complainant as well as OPs have produced certain documents in support of their respective contentions.

5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the version filed by OP-2, sworn testimony of both the parties, various documents produced by both sides, written submissions and other materials placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

8.  The complainant has produced receipts under which the said Washing machine has been purchased.  Admittedly, one D.Muniraju has purchased the said Washing machine under the above mentioned receipt dated 04.04.2008.  The said Washing machine is also not in warranty period.  Therefore, the complainant or above said Muniraju cannot maintain the present complaint against OP-2 for alleged manufacturing defect or any other problem with the said Washing machine.  In fact the complainant who is not the owner of Washing machine cannot maintain the present complaint against OP-2.

9. The perusal of allegations made in the complaint as well as the job card discloses that the complainant requested OP-1 on 04.09.2013 for the repairs of the said Washing machine and as per the request the Washing machine has been taken away by OP-1 for repairs on 06.09.2013.  OP-1 was expected to carry out the repairs within a reasonable time and return the Washing machine to complainant.  Since the Washing machine is not within the warranty period, the complainant is expected to pay for replacement of any defective parts and repairs.  The complainant claims that, since after taking away the Washing machine, OP-1 did not carry out the repairs and return the washing machine even after several days despite his repeated visits and requests.  However, the OP-2 contends that after receiving the Washing machine for repairs, OP-1 carried out the repairs and made it in a functional condition and on 05.10.2013, 07.10.2013 and 08.10.2013 called upon the complainant to collect the Washing machine by paying repair charges of Rs.12,601/-.  The OP-2 has produced the copy of the job card.  The follow up details in the job card discloses that, on 05.10.2013 at 4.13 p.m and on 07.10.2013 at 10.30 A.M the complainant has been informed over phone to come and collect the washing machine by paying the repair charges.  Since, the complainant has not responded to the same, again on 08.10.2013 at 12.17 P.M the complainant has been contacted over phone to come and collect the Washing machine as the same has been fully repaired but the complainant has refused to come and collect the washing machine.  The complainant in his affidavit evidence did not specifically denied about the information given to him by the OP-1 on 05.10.2013, 07.10.2013 and 08.10.2013.

10. The perusal of the job card discloses that OP-1 has replaced duct worth Rs.4,137/-, PCB worth Rs.4,466/- and a fan worth Rs.1,671/-.  Thus, the OP-1 has replaced spare parts worth Rs.10,268/- in the said Washing machine.  After having replaced spare parts worth Rs.10,268/- OP-1 would not keep quiet and retain the washing machine with them.  It is apparent that the complainant himself has not come forward to collect the Washing machine may be because he was to pay Rs.12,601/- towards repair and service charges.  We do not have any reasons to disbelieve the entries made in the job card.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we don’t find any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.  OP-1 is justified in demanding the repair charges since the washing machine is not within the warranty period.  The complainant is liable to pay repair charges as demanded by OP-1.  Therefore, we don’t find any truth in the allegations of the complainant that the OP-1 failed to return the washing machine after the repairs.  Since, the complainant has handed over the washing machine to OP-1 they are liable to return the same to the complainant if at all he pays repair charges of Rs.12,601/-.  If at all the complainant is desirous of taking washing machine he shall approach OP-1 and collect the washing machine by paying the said repair charges.

11. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of either OP-1 and OP-2.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.      

12. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 15^th day of February 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 02.08.2014.

1. Sri. Kiran.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of Opposite parties-2 dated 26.07.2014.

1. Sri.Sriniwas Joshi.  

Document produced by the Opposite parties-2:

MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln*