BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 27^th day of November 2015

Filed on : 30-05-2012

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.324/2012

Between

P.S. Sivan, : Complainant

S/o. Sankunni, (By Adv. Suraj Krishna 'Jyothis',

res. at Madathiprambil, P.D. Road, Palluruthy P.O.,

Pullar Desam Road, Palluruthy P.O., Kochi-6)

Kochi-682 006.

And

Electrolux Ekl Appliances Ltd., : Opposite parties

3^rd floor, Global business Park, (1^st O.P. absent)

Mehrauli – Gurgaon Road,

Haryana-122 002.

Rep.by its Manager (Service)

Authorized Service Centre,

SYDA Bldg - 2^nd Floor,

(Opp. IGNOU Regional Centre)

Kaloor-Kadavantahra Road,

Kaloor, Cochin.

Present address:

AIRCORN, Authorized Electrolux

Service Centre, Opp. LAZZA Ice

Cream, Thaikkadavu,

Muttom, Ernakulam.

(Manufacturer through its

Authorized Service Centre Manager)

The proprietor, (2^nd O.P. By Adv. George Cherian

M/s. White Planet Global Karippaparambil , Karippaparambil

Electronic Village, Associates, HB 48, Panampilly

M.G. Road North End, Nagar, Kochi-682 036)

Ernakulam, Kochi-682 031. (Dealer).

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

The case of the complainant

Shri. P.S. Sivan had filed the complaint against M/s. Electrolux Ekl Appliances Ltd., and M/s. White Planet Global Electronic Village alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, in connection with the purchase of Washing machine manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and delivered through the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant purchased the washing machine on 03-07-2009 for an amount of Rs. 10,990/- on February 2011. The Washing Machine showed mechanical complaints and it stopped working. The complaint had informed the opposite parties regarding the malfunctioning of the machine and the service representative of the opposite parties came to the complainant's residence on 26-02-2011. On opening it, it was found that the entire machine inside was substantially rusted. Due to the rusty condition of the motor and mechanical parts the machine was beyond repair and as advised by the service technician the complainant reported the matter before the service authority and demanded complete replacement of the machine. The service technician gave the telephone number of one Saritha and advised him to call her since she was the head of service wing. The complainant not only contacted over phone but also met her in her office. As per service warranty offered by the manufacturer the machine was covered under a full replacement warranty for 24 months starting from 3^rd July 2009 and ending of 2^nd July 2011. Even though the complainant had waited for 7 months for replacement of the washing machine by the opposite parties nothing transpired. Therefore the complainant was constrained to buy a new LG washing machine on payment of Rs. 11,250/- from Nanthilath G-mart, Kochi. The complainant was constrained to purchase a new washing machine within the warranty period of the old one only because of the lack of service on the part of the opposite parties. However the complainant persuaded the matter further with opposite parties and no positive response was emanating from them. The washing machine purchased by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled to get replacement with compensation. The non-fixing of the complaint in time by the opposite parties, upon to the complainant is a deficiency in service which would entitled him to claim compensation. The complainant also seeks the costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties. Hence this complainant.

1. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The 2^nd opposite party appeared and the notice to the 1^st opposite party returned unserved. In spite of repeated orders given to furnish the correct address of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant did not furnish any such address. On 16-07-2015 steps were taken by the complainant to issue notice to the 1^st opposite party to its corporate office. That notice was also seen served on them and the complainant did not produce track record to showing the service of notice of opposite party No. 1. The notice issued to the opposite party returned unexecuted with endorsement that the party is not known. Notice on the further addresses furnished by the complainant also did not evoke any result and the postal articles returned with the endorsement “addressee left”.

   3. The 2^nd opposite party filed a version resisting the complainant contending inter-alia as follows:

The complaint is not maintainable. The purchase of the washing machine by the complainant on 03-07-2009 was for Rs. 10,990/- and 2 years warranty subject to the terms and conditions. The allegation that the washing machine had become defunct in February 2011 is incorrect. The complainant was provided with a brand new machine and the allegation that there was a rusting on the machine is incorrect. The complainant did not contact Smt. Saritha as alleged in the office of the opposite parties. The complaint was filed on 30-05-2012 which is much after the warranty period of two years. The complaint is bonafide and is sought to be dismissed.

1. 2. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for

consideration.

i. Whether the complainant has proved that there was any

manufacturing defect for the machine purchased by him as

alleged?

ii. Was there any proved deficiency on the part of the opposite

party?

Iii. Reliefs and costs

1. 2. The complainant was continuously absent after filing the complaint on all the postings on 26-03-2015, 21-04-2015, 21-05-2015, 17-06-2015, 16-07-2015, 22-09-2015, 08-10-2015 and even today the complainant continued to be absent and there was no representative on his behalf. However even though the complainant did not adduce any oral evidence we have gone through the documents filed by him along with the complaint and those documents were marked as Exbts. A1 to A4. Heard the learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and we have perused the records.

6. Issue Nos. i&ii. Exbt. A1 is the purchase bill in respect of an Alfacare electrolux Washing Machine from the 2^nd opposite party on 04-07-2009 on part payment out of Rs. 10,990/- as the price. The balance amount of Rs. 5,590/- was paid on delivery. Exbt. A2 is the instruction manual pertaining to the Washing Machine supplied to the complainant and Exbts. A3 is the purchase bill of another washing machine dated 10^th October 2014 in the name of the complainant from M/s. Nandilath G-Mart on payment of Rs. 11,250/-. Exbt. A4 is the business card of the authorized service centre of the Washing Machine.

7. The case of the complainant was that the washing machine was rusted after its usage for one year and nine months the machine stopped functioning and the stoppage of the machine was within the period of warranty and further that the opposite parties did not provide the required repair service to set right the machine within the warranty period. The complainant did not produce any document to show that he had entrusted the washing machine to the opposite parties for repairs at any time. No acknowledgment of the receipt at the service centre is seen produced by the complainant. The case of the complainant brought in after using the machine for one and nine months in the guise of manufacturing defect can not be conceived without the pinch of salt. If as a matter of fact ,the machine was found rusted that fact should have been proved by appointing an advocate commissioner, which is not seen done in this case. The continuous absence of the complainant without taking proper steps to issue notice to the 1^st opposite party would lead us to arrive at a conclusion that the complainant has filed this complaint only as a test case and without any bonafides. The documents produced by the complainant does not inspire confidence on us to hold that the machine went wrong in its performance at any time during the warranty period. Therefore we find that the consumer complaint filed by the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Issues are accordingly found against the complainant.

1. 2. Issue No. iii. Having found issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the complainant we find that the complainant has not proved his case and as such the complaint stands dismissed. However in the circumstances of the case we are not inclined to award any costs in this proceedings.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of November 2015

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/ByOrder,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Exbt. A1 : Retail invoice dt. 03-07-2009

A2 : brochure

A3 : Copy of cash bill dt. 10-10-2011

A4 : Visiting card

Opposite party’s Exhibits: : Nil

Copy of order despatched on:

By Post: By Hand: