BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 133/2006 Filed on 27.04.2006 Dated : 31.12.2009 Complainant: Indira Krishnan, T.C 12/641-1, Santhi Nivas, Kunnukuzhi, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Anitha Aji) Opposite parties:
Electrolux Kelvinator Limited, 3rd Floor, Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Electrolux Kelvinator Limited, Syda Building, 2nd Floor, Kaloor-Kadavanthara Road, Opposite IGNOU, Kaloor, Cochin-682 017. (By adv. Muramel A.N. Shaji)
M/s Singson Electronics, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram. Cryogenics, Customer Care Centre, T.C 16/1654, Opp: Head Post Office, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been taken as heard on 03.12.2009, the Forum on 31.12.2009 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
The complaint has been filed by a senior citizen aged 73 years and the allegations in the complaint are the following: Complainant had purchased one Electrolux washing machine model No. EW 1045 F from the 3rd opposite party on 06.09.2002 for Rs. 17,990/-. The 1st opposite party provided warranty for the machine for one year. On the very next day of the purchase, when the machine was used, it turned out to be faulty, with the detergent draw, falling off. The 3rd opposite party had replaced it only after much persuasion and it took quite some time causing the complainant damages to her health, loss of time and money. The matter was sorted out only after making repeated and frantic calls to the 3rd opposite party. Exactly after one year after the date of purchase, the machine repeatedly failed and had to be repaired by the service centre, Cryogenics, Tvpm, the 3rd opposite party, the customer care and servicing centre of opposite parties. The complainant had paid for this. But once again just after the repair the machine failed repeatedly and the 3rd opposite party's mechanic was called in. The service centre mechanics messed up with the alignment and the belt was broken and it had to be replaced. The belt in itself cost the complainant Rs. 1,000/- and she had to pay for the labour charges also. Again every time when the machine failed it took a very long time to get it done, because of the unavailability of the mechanic. Eventually the mechanic failed once for all with tremendous leakage and electric shock affecting the safety of the complainant. It was altogether dead and an expert mechanic who was called in for his expert opinion noticed that it was originally a damaged piece. The complainant desperately approached the 3rd opposite party, who just put her to the 2nd opposite party and washed his hands off. However, the opposite parties blamed each other and tried to exonerate themselves instead of attending the defect. Then the 3rd opposite party offered to replace the machine with a new one by imposing an additional burden of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant. Because of the compelling circumstances, complainant was forced to pay Rs. 3,000/- as demanded by the 3rd opposite party on 29.03.2005. Quite surprisingly the replaced machine also showed the very same mechanical defects. The replaced machine being faulty the 2nd opposite party replaced twice, after repeated demands made by the complainant. And they offered to replace for the third time having realized the defect of their own replaced pieces. Unfortunately the 2nd replaced machine also showed the same defect. All the opposite parties have deliberately delivered the said washing machine to the complainant with the knowledge that it will not function properly. After convinced of the defect by this, the 3rd opposite party offered to replace it with a fourth piece. Because of the previous bitter experiences the complainant rejected it. Thereafter the complainant reported the matter to the 1st opposite party, who assured her that he would get back to her after discussing the matter with the 2nd opposite party. So far they did not make any steps. It is submitted that the opposite parties had together supplied a defective and faulty machine to the complainant and had not cared to rectify the actual fault or replace the same with a good condition machine, which tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, for which the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties. Opposite parties 3 & 4 remain exparte.
Opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed their joint version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant purchased a electrolux washing machine from the 3rd opposite party. The 1st opposite party provided warranty for the machine for one year. The complainant has no case that the machine was defective within the warranty period. Complainant had purchased a fully automatic machine. Hence the machine should be used properly and correctly. But it was not used properly and correctly. Hence after the expiry of one year the machine became faulty. Even though as per the request of the complainant their service experts examined the machine and cured the defects. But again due to the mishandling of the machine problem arose. At last they provided a brand new machine to the complainant for considering the customer satisfaction. But the complainant rejected it and the Brand new machine is still in their custody without use. These opposite parties have provided service in proper time as per the request of the complainant and have not committed any deficiency in service. The replaced machine is also a perfect one but only considering the customer satisfaction, replaced the old one and gave new brand one to the complainant. So the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint against these opposite parties. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant's authorisation holder has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P11. She has not been cross examined by opposite parties. Hence her affidavit stands unchallenged. The expert commissioner appointed by this Forum has filed the report which has been marked as Ext. C1. Opposite parties have no evidence.
The following issues arise for consideration: Whether the complainant has been supplied with a defective washing machine? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Reliefs and costs?
Points (i) to (iii):- The complainant alleges that the washing machine supplied to her became defective from the very next day of its purchase and it has been further pleaded that the washing machine was replaced thrice. The opposite parties 1 & 2 in their version have contended that the washing machine became defective due to its improper use by the complainant. Further opposite parties 1 & 2 have stated that though the machine became defective due to mishandling, their service experts examined the machine and cured the defects and considering customer satisfaction they were willing to provide a brand new machine to the complainant. At this juncture, the report by the expert is to be looked as to what is the cause of the defect. The expert commissioner has reported that the machine was checked and tested under all conditions and found defective in manufacture. The defects noted by the commissioner are heavy leakage during washing affecting the circuits, machine uncontrollably noisy and vibrating during spin, going to the extent of bodily moving drastically away from the set position. The above defects prevent functioning and affect safety. From the above report of the expert commissioner it can be concluded that the washing machine supplied to the complainant had inherent manufacturing defect. Moreover, the complainant has pleaded that the 3rd opposite party had replaced the washing machine supplied to the complainant twice and the 2nd opposite party had replaced the washing machine once. Altogether 3 times, the washing machine was replaced with a new one. The 3rd opposite party has not turned up to deny the same. The very fact that immediately after its purchase, the washing machine developed defects and had to be replaced thrice on various reasons is enough to hold that the washing machine had some serious primary defects. The expert commissioner has also reported the defects in the washing machine as manufacturing defect. Ext. C1 has not been challenged by opposite parties.
From the foregoing discussions, it is evident that the complainant, who is a senior citizen, had undisputedly wasted time, money, energy in getting the washing machine repaired repeatedly and could not have the satisfaction of using a new washing machine. The mental distress of such person cannot be commuted in terms of money. Anyhow, the complainant has claimed compensation for the faulty machine along with other reliefs. Hence we allow Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till realisation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of December 2009.
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER jb C.C. No. 133/2006 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - I. Shanthi Krishnan II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of cash/credit bill dated 06.09.2002 P2 - Photocopy of call sheet cum claim form issued by opposite party. P3 - Photocopy of returnable outward stock note issued by opposite party. P4 - Photocopy of counterfoil of DD remittance slip dated 29.03.2005 P5 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 20.12.2005. P6 - Acknowledgement card P7 - Acknowledgement card dated 26.12.2005. P8 - Postal receipt dated 20.12.2005 P9 - Postal receipt dated 20.12.2005 P10 - Postal receipt dated 20.12.2005. P11 - Consignment letter dated 05.01.2006. III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
V COURT EXHIBIT:
C1 - Commission Report
PRESIDENT
| 
