Date of filing:19.12.2013
Date of Disposal:14.3.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014.
C.C.No.194 OF 2013.
Between :
B.Suresh Kumar,S/o Late Bala Raman, Hindu, R/o D.No.4-119A,F-5, 2nd Floor,Venkata Sai towers, Ayyaplpa Swamy Temple Street,Gollapudi Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna Distict.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Digital Vision, Rep., by its Proprietor, Opp. All India Radio Station, M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 10, Krishna District.
2. Vishnu Home Care Services, Authorized Service Partner, rep., by its Manager, Whirlpool, D.No.3-22-77, Shop No.20 & 21, K.P. Towers, Seetharamapuram, Vijayawada – 04.
3. Whirlpool of India Limited, Corporate Office, Rep., by its Branch Service Manager, Plot No.40, Section – 44,Gurgaon – 122 002.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 5.3.2014 in the presence of Sri A.Krishna Kishore, Counsel for complainant and opposite party No.1 remained absent and opposite party No.2 appearing in person and Sri K.V.Udaya Bhaskar, Counsel for opposite party No.3 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by complainant under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.16,500/- towards the cost of Whirlpool ABM 501 Washing Machine or to replace the same with new one, to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and for other reliefs.
1. The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a washing machine having model name Whirlpool ABM 501 from the 1st opposite party and the cost of the machine is Rs.16,500/-. The 2nd opposite party is authorized service center and the 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said machine. The opposite parties provided warranty for a period of two years i.e. from 28.10.2008 to 27.10.2010 for the said machine. While so the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant and represented that if the complainant pays Rs.3,300/-, the warranty will be extended up to one year i.e. 15.2.2012 to 14.2.2013 and the complainant paid the said amount and the 2nd opposite party issued cash bill bearing No.288, dt.15.2.2012. It is submitted that within a short span after the payment of said amount, the machine created a lot of problems to the complainant without properly functioning. The complainant informed the same to the 2nd opposite party who sent a technician by name Shareef and who informed that the spin is not working and that they will rectify the same, but in vain. The complainant telephoned to the Toll Free No.18601804558 and explained about the problem, but no person attended. Again on 5.2.2013 the complainant lodged a complaint with 2nd opposite party, but of no use. On the other hand the 2nd opposite party people used to gave arrogant replies as and when the complainant approached them. Having vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued notice to the opposite parties and finally filed the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties 2 and 3 are present. The 1st opposite party remained absent. On 4.2.2014 the 3rd opposite party sent Vakalat through post which was accepted by one K.V.Udya Bhaskar, Advocate. But no version is filed.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.
4. Heard the complainant and perused the record.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not rectifying the defect in the Washing Machine of complainant within warranty period?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
POINT NO.1:-
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), the case of complainant is that he purchased the Washing Machine Whrilpool ABM 501 from the 1st opposite party on 28.10.2008 for Rs.16,500/- under Ex.A1 Cash bill. Admittedly the 2nd opposite party is the authorized servicing center of 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer of said washing machine. As per the complainant, the warranty for the said machine is two years and the same has elapsed by 27.10.2010 and later as per the representation made by 2nd opposite party, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,300/- on 15.2.2012 for extension of warranty period for one year. Ex.A2 application form and Ex.A3 Cash bill No.288, dt.15.2.2012 discloses the factum of payment of amount of Rs.3,300/-. As such the warranty period extended from 15.2.2012 to 14.2.2013 for the said machine. It is the grievance of complainant that after the said payment, the said machine started giving troubles to complainant and the complainant telephoned to the 2nd opposite party who is authorized service center of 3rd opposite party and informed about the defect. On that one Shareef, technician examined the machine and stated that the spin is not working and that they will replace the same. But so far the said defect was not rectified in spite of repeated requests made by complainant and in spite of issuing legal notice under Ex.A4. To disprove the said allegations, the opposite parties have not put forth its respective versions. The 3rd opposite party though filed Vakalat failed to file version. As such the said allegations remained unchallenged. Unless the opposite parties put forth their version by stating real and correct facts and by denying the allegations of the complaint, this Forum has no option than to draw adverse inference that there is no defence for the opposite parties.
7. Record further discloses that the 3rd opposite party after receipt of notice got issued a reply under Ex.A5 admitting the purchase of machine by complainant and also stated that after inspection of machine by their service engineer, they found that there was a problem of “Drum Assay”, which need to be replaced to make the appliance in good working condition and that they are ready to replace the machine as per the their policy i.e. after deducting the depreciation value for the period of last few years i.e. 50% of invoice value and if the complainant agrees to pay the same, they are ready to replace the same. Admittedly the complainant purchased the said machine in the year 2008 and used the same till 2013. Further there is no dispute with regard to warranty period. As the 3rd opposite party itself admitted the defect in the washing machine, it is clear that there is a manufacturing defect in the said washing machine, which was not rectified by the 2nd opposite party authorized service center. Hence, it is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly this point answered in favour of complainant.
8. According to Section 2(i) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act any fault or imperfection or short coming in its quality, potency, performance or standard which is required to be maintained by under any Law for the time being in force or as is claimed by a trader in any manner whatever in relation to any goods comes within the mischief of defective goods. As per Section 14(1)(a) & (b) the buyer is entitled to remedy by way of either removing the defect or by way of replacing the goods with similar description or by way of return of the price or charges paid by the consumer.
9. But in view of usage of washing machine by complainant for five years, the complainant is not entitled for entire amount. As the 3rd opposite party admitted for replacement of machine on payment of half of the amount, the complainant is directed to pay the half of amount of value of machine to the 3rd opposite party. So far as the liability of 1st opposite party is concerned, he is only seller of machine who do not know about the defects in the machine. As such complainant is not entitled for any relief against the 1st opposite party,but entitled the reliefs against the opposite parties 2 and 3.
POINT No.2:-
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to replace the defective washing machine of complainant with a new one of same brand on payment of Rs.8,250/- (Eight thousand and two hundred and fifty rupees only) by complainant to the opposite parties 2 and 3. The 3rd opposite party is directed to provide one year warranty on the new machine and also bare the transportation charges. The time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. The other claims of the complainant are hereby dismissed. The complainant is directed to return the old machine as and when the opposite parties 2 and 3 replaced the same. The complaint against the 1st opposite party is dismissed.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 14th day of March, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 B.Suresh Kumar None.
Complainant
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 28.10.2008 Bill issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.2 15.02.2012 Application form.
Ex.A.3 15.02.2002 Cash bill for Rs.3,300/- issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A.4 11.03.2013 Office copy legal notice.
Ex.A.5 18.07.2013 Letter from the 3rd opposite party office at Pune, Maharastra
to the complainant.
On behalf of the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT
