KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO.182 /2010

                             JUDGMENT DATED:16-08-2011

PRESENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                 :  MEMBER

Indira Krishnan, D/o Thankamma,

TC.12/641-1, Santhi Nivas,                                : APPELLANT

Kunnukuzhi, TVPM.

(By Adv:Sri.K.S.Satheesh Kumar)

          Vs.

1.      Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, Global Business Park,

Mehrauli-Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002.

2.      Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd.,

Syda Building, 2^nd floor, Kaloor,

Kadavanthra Road, Opp. IGNOU,

Kaloor, Cochin-682 017.

                                                                   : RESPONDENTS

3.      M/s Singson Electronics, M.G.Road,

Thiruvananthapuram.

4.      Cryogenics Customer Care Centre,

TC 16/1654, Opp. Head Post Office,

Jagathy, TVPM.

JUDGMENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR:  MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the complainant in CC.133/06 before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram who is not satisfied by the directions of the Forum below to the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost.

2.      The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details is that she had purchased an Electrolux washing machine for a sum of Rs.17,990/- from the 3^rd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and that the machine was defective from the very beginning itself.  It is alleged by the complainant that even after repeated repairs, the defects continued and that altogether there were 3 replacements of the washing machine and inspite of replacements the machine, supplied, suffered from defects.  It is also alleged that the machines supplied could not be rectified by the opposite parties.  Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- along with further directions to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the supply of a faulty machine.

3.      Opposite parties contested the matter by filing version wherein it was submitted that the complainant had no case that the machine was defective within the warranty period and that if at all there were any defects it was due to the improper use and though they had provided a brand new machine to the complainant, the complainant rejected it. Contending that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4.      The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the daughter of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P11.  Forum below appointed a commissioner to inspect the washing machine and report filed by the commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted before us that the Forum below has failed in appreciating the entire facts of the case while passing the order.  It is his case that even after 2 replacements the machine supplied by the opposite parties suffered from defects and even in the commission report it has been specifically stated that there was heavy leakage during washing and also that the machine had uncontrollable noise and vibration during its spin going to the extent of bodily moving drastically away from the set position.  Inviting our attention to the commission report, the learned counsel submitted that the commissioner had stated that the machine was defective in manufacture and the Forum below ought to have ordered for refund of the value of the machine along with compensation and costs.

6.      On hearing the learned counsel and also on going through the records we find that the Forum below has appreciated the case of the complainant to a greater extent and has passed the impugned order.  However it is also noted that inspite of the fact that the machine was defective, the Forum below has failed in directing the opposite party to refund the value.  However it is noted that an order to the opposite parties to replace the machine at this stage is of no use, since even after replacements, the opposite parties supplied only defective machines. In the said circumstances, it is found that the opposite parties can be directed to refund the value of the machine ie Rs.17,990/-.  It is also found that the complainant has paid sum of Rs.3000/- as per Ext.P4 for getting replacement of the machine on earlier occasions.  Hence it will be just and proper that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.20,990/- to the complainant along with the directions to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.3000/-.  The order of the Forum below is modified accordingly.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above.  Thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,990/- being the amount received from the complainant towards the washing machine with compensation  of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- with interest at 12% from the date of the order of the Forum below till payment.  However in the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

The office is directed to return the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         :  MEMBER

VL.