DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V., PRESIDENT.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING: 30.03.2024.
CC/108/2024
A.Vijayaraghavan, Surabhi (SGNR-B5), - Complainant
Sekharipuram, Palakkad-678 010.
(party-in-person)
Vs
1. Eureka Forbes Limited, -Opposite Parties
B1/B2, 701, 7th Floor, Marathon Innova,
Marathon NextGen, Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013.
2. Eureka Forbes Limited,
Lakshmivilas, Dr.V.K.Narayana Menon Road,
Near Keerankulangara Temple, Thrissur-680 005.
(By Adv.M/s.K.A.Kailas and C.S.Meenakshi Sundaram)
ORDER
BY SRI.KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief:-
The complaint is about the failure of the opposite party company to provide timely and proper after sales service for the vacuum cleaner purchased by the complainant. The complainant purchased a semi-automatic vacuum cleaning machine on 12.12.2022 manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party, which is a branch of the 1st opposite party for Rs.19,999/-. The machine became defective just 6 months after the purchase and the defects existed even after the repair. The machine is laying with the opposite parties since 17.01.2024. The defect was about a small box known as “Dust Bin” fixed inside a chamber of the machine. The complainant made the following efforts to get the problem fixed before approaching this Commission.
a) Contacted the call centre of the company on 18.08.2023, 22.08.2023 and on 23.08.2023,
b) As the calls did not yield any result, he sent e-mail to the 1st opposite party’s customer care ID. The technician from the 1st opposite party’s service centre at Palakkad took the machine to the service centre. The machine was brought back claiming that it was working properly. But the defects continued.
c) The complainant sent second e-mail on 27.08.2023. A new technician attended the complainant and replaced the “dust bin”.
d) After working smoothly for about 10 days the machine started giving the same problem. The opposite party demanded payment for the replaced “dust bin”.
e) On 02.12.2023, the complainant contacted the Area Manager and on 05.12.2023, he visited the service centre in spite of which the problem could not be solved. On 08.12.2023, the complainant made several attempts to contact the 2nd opposite party but ended in vain since the phone calls were not going through. Hence, the complainant wrote letter to the 2nd opposite party expressing serious doubts about the conduct of Palakkad Service Centre and its ability to repair such type of machines and requested them to take the machine to Thrissur for urgent repair. On 16.01.2024, the 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant and after much persuasion technician from Palakkad Centre took the machine.
f) On 17.02.2024, the complainant received a call from the Service Centre stating that the machine is irreparable, and since warranty period has expired the 1st opposite party has offered refund of 50% of the original cost to settle the matter. But never shared any documents regarding this.
g) On 19.02.2024, the complainant called the Area Manager and informed that the offer is not acceptable and sought either replacement or refund of original cost.
h) On 28.02.2024, sent a written communication to the 2nd opposite party with copies marked to the first opposite party and Palakkad Service Centre seeking replacement of machine or refund within 10 days.
i) On 02.03.2024, the Palakkad Service Centre informed the complainant that they had recommended for replacement of the machine. But the Area Manager subsequently informed that as the manufacture of the model in question has already been stopped, the option available is only refund. But nothing has been done till 29.03.2024. Hence, the complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties after admitting the complaint. They entered appearance and filed version denying the allegations. According to them, the defect was that of PCB of the machine and hence, the same was to be replaced and as the machine is out of warranty period, the replacement is chargeable for which the complainant disagreed.
3. The case was referred for mediation, but no settlement could be reached. The following issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant and opposite parties.
1) Whether the vacuum cleaner purchased by the complainant suffers from any manufacturing defect?
2) Whether the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects of the product as per the terms of warranty?
3) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs?
5) Any other reliefs.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A7 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice issued by the opposite party for the product, Ext.A2 is the copy of letter dated 08.12.2023 addressed to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant, Ext.A3 is the letter dated 28.02.2024 written to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant, Ext.A4 is the email addressed to the customer care of the 1st opposite party dated 23.08.2023 and Ext.A5 is the email dated 27.08.2023 addressed to CEO of the 1st opposite party. Exts.A6 and A7 are the call data details of the complainant’s mobile phone.
5. As all the opposite parties are set ex-parte, this Commission is expected to examine whether a prima facie case is proved against the opposite parties based on the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and documents marked from his side as evidence.
6. Issue Nos.1, 2 and 3
From the documents marked as Ext.A2 to A5, it is evident that the complainant has reported the defect of the machine in question with the opposite parties duly escalating the issue upto the CEO level in spite of which the problems raised by the complainant remain unresolved even now. Though the complainant did not take any steps to appoint an Expert Commission to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the product, the chronology of events clearly show that the machine is having some serious defect which could not be resolved by the Expert Technicians available at their end, be it manufacturing defect or otherwise. The failure of the Expert Technicians attached to the service centre to rectify the defects, that too during the warranty period is a serious case of deficiency in service. The fact that the machine is still lying with the opposite party itself is a indication to their inability to cure the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. The argument put forth by the opposite parties in the version is that the complainant brought the issue after the expiry of warranty period and hence, they have to charge for the repair/ rectification. From the documents marked, it is clear that the complainant reported the defect initially on 24.08.2023 ie well within the warranty period of one year. Hence, the opposite parties are bound to rectify the defects as per warranty terms and the failure amounts to deficiency in service. As the opposite parties has already stopped the manufacturing of the particular model, the option available is only refund.
7. Issue No.4 and 5
As the deficiency in service is proved the complainant is entitled to the refund of the cost along with compensation and cost sought for.
8. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs;
1. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.19,999/- being the cost of the vacuum cleaner along with interest @ 10% pa from 12.12.2022 till the date of payment.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and resultant mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 3rd day of December, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Copy of the tax invoice issued by the opposite party for the product dated 12.12.2022, for Rs.19,999/-
Ext.A2: Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party on 08.12.2023.
Ext.A3: Copy of letter dated 28.02.2024 written to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant.
Ext.A4: Copy of email addressed to the customer care of the 1st opposite party dated 23.08.2023.
Ext.A5: Copy of the email dated 27.08.2023 addressed to CEO of the 1st opposite party.
Ext.A6: Call details record (CDR) dated 30.08.2024 in respect of complainant’s mobile phone issued by Accounts Officer.
Ext.A7: Extract of CDR prepared by the complainant.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Document marked from the side of Court: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 5,000/-.
Manuscript prepared by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant and verified by me.
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2024.
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K, Member.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
