<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2302/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sukanya,W/o Dr.Capt. G.M.K Setty,No.9/3, Ramakrishna Sadan,17th Cross, 12th Main,Malleshwaram,Bangalore – 560 055.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Girias Investment (P) Ltd.,No.37, 100 ft Road, 1st Block, Opp. Dayananda Sagar Choultry,Jayanagar,Bangalore – 560 011.2. IFB Industries Ltd.,Home Appliances Division,No.16/17,Vishweshwaraiah Industrial Estate,Off – White Field Road,Mahadevapura Post,Bangalore – 560 048.Advocate – Sri.B.N.Vinod Kumar<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the cost of the washing machine or replace the same with brand new defect free machine and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased an IFB SENATOR – 3816 washing machine manufactured by OP.2 from its dealer OP.1 for a valid consideration of Rs.22,000/- on 21.03.2007. The said washing machine carried warranty for two years. But within a span of few months complainant noticed certain mechanical defects with the said washing machine. It was not taking detergent, gushing of water from the front door, clothes are not getting washed properly, filthy smell. The said problem was brought to the notice of the OP. Though OP attended to the said complaint, but they are unable to detect the defect and cure the same. OP did take machine for three days to their shop for repairs and then returned it but the result is one and the same. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant either to replace or to refund the cost went in vain. Though complainant invested her hard earned money she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment because of the defective washing machine supplied by the OP. Hence she felt both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.2 filed the version. OP.1 adopted the same. It is contended by the OP that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. The problem faced by the complainant with regard to the said washing machine is due to over loading the said machine and not following the instructions enumerated in the users manual. When complainant made complaint OP technicians inspected the said washing machine, it was in a perfect working condition. The leakage of the water is mainly because of over loading. To satisfy the complainant they took the said machine and repaired it. They are able to detect the defect and cure the same. Though complainant used the said machine for more than a year has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. The minor defects if any are mainly due to bad handling of the said machine. OP is ready to attend the defects if any and will change the spare parts. Actually complainant is not permitting him to attend to the said defects. Hence no fault lies with them. The warranty issued by the OP covers all the parts of the washing machine. They are prepared to replace the defective parts free of cost and extend free service but it is the complainant who is bent upon in seeking replacement of the machine or refund of the cost, which is not fair. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one IFB SENATOR – 3816 washing machine from OP.1 the dealer which is manufactured by OP.2 on 23.01.2007 for a valid consideration. The fact that the said washing machine carried two years warranty is also not at dispute. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that within a span of few months she noticed that the machine is not working properly it was not taking detergent, gushing of the water from the front door, filthy smell, clothes are not getting washed properly. Hence she made complaint to OP to attend to the said defect.<br /> 7. According to OP on the receipt of the complaint they did depute technicians to examine the said machine and the technicians who inspected it found that the machine is in a proper working condition, the leakage of the water is mainly due to the bad handling. With all that they took the machine to their work shop and repaired it and returned it to the complainant. So one thing is made clear that there is some defect in the said washing machine. That is the reason why OP took it to their shop and repaired it. If the technicians of the OP felt that the said machine is in a working condition there was no need for OP to take it to their shop for repairs. In addition to that affidavit of the said technician who alleged to have inspected the said machine is not filed. Under such circumstances we find the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to save their skin out of sin or to avoid their obligation.<br /> <br /> 8. When OP admits the defect in the machine then it is for them to cure the same to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is alleged by the OP that though they are ready to replace the defective parts and repair the machine complainant is not allowing them to do the same. This defence appears to be highly imaginary and unbelievable one. If the approach of the OP is really fair and honest they would have caused some notice to the complainant demanding her to permit them to examine the said machine and repair it. But no such steps are taken. So in order to save their skin out of sin OP has come up with some untenable defence.<br /> <br /> 9. The fact that the said defect appeared in the machine within the warranty period is also not at dispute. Complainant invested her hard earned money to get the defect free washing machine. Unfortunately she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Of course complainant has claimed for refund of the cost of the said machine. In our view she is not entitled for the said relief. Justice will be met by directing the OP to replace IFB SENATOR – 3816 machine with a brand new defect free machine and take back the earlier machine supplied and pay some litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the washing machine sold to the complainant under bill No.83071 dated 21.03.2007 with a brand new defect free washing machine of the same model for the said cost and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- and take back the defective machine. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the cost of the said washing machine Rs.22,000/- and litigation cost Rs.1,000/- and take back the defective machine.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Vln* <br /> <br />