Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/453/2015

Parvati N Karki - Complainant(s)

Versus

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M G Kulkarni

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.453/2015

 

                     Date of filing: 15/09/2015

 

                                                                  Date of disposal: 04/01/2017

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Parvati Narayan Karki, Age: 46 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o 1793, Kelkar Bag, Belagavi. .                     (Rep. by Sri.M.G.Kulkarni, Adv.)

                                                    - V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.               2.         3.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Appliance Division, Corporate Office 28, Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce Building, Crescent Road, Near Shivanand Circle, Bangalore.                  (Rep. by Sri.P.V.Malannavar, Adv.)   S.G. Enterprises, 1st Floor, Above Manjunath Sweet Mart, Near Church, Bauxite Road, Vaibhav Nagar, Belagavi – 590010.   Revankar Electronics Corporation, Kadolkar Galli, Belagavi.                                   (OP.No.2 & 3 Ex-parte)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                    J U D G M E N T

 

 

By Sri. A.G.Maldar, President.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) to refund the amount of Rs.7,800/- with interest @18% p.a. from the date of purchase of machine by taking back the defective machine and OP.No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards Mental agony & any other reliefs etc.,

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

           It is the case of the complainant is that, on 19.06.2013 the complainant had purchased the Semi Automatic Washing Machine from OP.No.3 under receipt No.588 for Rs.7,800/-, the same is manufactured by the OP.No.1 bearing Model No.GWS 6203 and OP.No.3, who is the Authorized Dealer of OP.No.1. But, within a six months from the date of purchase, the said machine started experiencing problem in the Dryer/Spinner Drum, it stopped giving trouble while spinning and Drum started oscillating too much and making sound, even two or three clothes are put in it. The complainant has compelled to Op.No.3 for same defect, and OP.No.3 got informed the complainant to contact Op.No.2, after informing the OP.No.2, on 25.01.2015, but nobody attended.  Once-again, complaint is register and OP.No.2 sent some person to look into the problem. But, the service engineer could not solve the problem and he could not identify and rectify the same, even after lapse of six months of the complaint and the said washing machine has a manufacturing defect and therefore the complainant has issued legal notice to OP.No.1 & 2 on 08.06.2015 demanding the replace of the washing machine or refund the cost of the machine.

 

          It is further case of the complainant that, after receipt of the notice to the OP.No.1 & 2. The OP.No.2 authorized service person came to the complainant’s house and told that, he will rectify the machine. The complainant is fed up with the product and demand to arrange for refund of amount or replace with new one. But, the OP.No.2 told that, after replaced the motor of spinning drum, there will not be any problem with respect of machine, believing in the words of the OP.No.2, the complainant has agreed for repairs.

  

          It is further also case of the complainant that, on 07.07.2015, the spinning drum of the machine which was replaced by the OP.No.2, the same has been not working and complainant brought the same to the notice of Op.No.1 & 2 and the OP.No.2 visited the complainants house and after inspecting the machine he told that, the motor is faulty and out of order and informed that, no spares are available and went away and nobody cared to attend the complaint and further, the complainant has registered the complaint to customer care by calling 1800225511 on 14.07.2015. On 17.07.2015 once again the Op.No.2 visited the complainant’s house and stated that, he has communicated the problem occurring to the said washing machine to the company, but nobody cared so far. Due to inefficient and non providing the proper and timely service the complainant has been put to lot of mental agony and torture, due to the ineffective, deficient and timely service, the complainant has been put to untold hardship and inconvenience. The conduct on the part of Ops its amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

 

3.      After issue of notice to the Opponents, the OP.No.1 has appeared through his counsel and OP.No.2 & 3 have neither appeared nor filed any version, inspite of giving sufficient time. The Hon’ble District Forum considered the OP.No.2 & 3 are placed
Ex-parte and OP.No.1 contended that, it is one of the reputed company having global recognition in manufacturing and marketing of home appliances from several decades, having its marketing establishment through the world and also having a good appreciations from the consumer end. Further the Op.No.1 is being a reputed company has maintained a good quality in their outputs. The complainant has filed this false complaint only to harass the OP and to make unlawful and it is not maintainable for any such reliefs claimed in the complaint, the Op.No.1 denied all the averments made by the complainant.

 

          The OP.No.1 further contended that, the complainant has got purchased the washing machine from Op.No.3 and the said machine was working in a good condition and there is no any defects in its performance and further contended that, inspite of advise given by the OPs, the complainant started to put over load in the washing machine than its capacity. Further it is case of OP.No.1 that, as per the warranty terms, the complainant is not entitled for replacement, whereas the OP is ready to rectify the defect any time.

 

          It is further also OP.No.1 contended that, when there is no defect in Washing Machine, the question of replacement or refund of cost does not arise at all, the said washing machine is not so defective to replace as alleged by the complainant. The complainant having used the same for more than two years continuously without any problem or complaint and complainant cannot seek for replacement. The intention of the complainant is manifest from the prayer column itself. No cause of action has arisen to file this complaint etc., hence Op.No.1 has prayed for dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

 

4.         Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their case, the documents produced on behalf of the complainant which were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3, for sake of our convenience, we have marked P & R series. On behalf of the OP has also filed 01 document and same is marked as Ex.R-1. Heard the arguments on both sides.

 

 

Now, on the basis of these facts, the following points are arise for our consideration:

 

1.  Whether the complainant has proved that, there is negligent and deficiency of service on the part of Op for not replace the LG-TV Screen?

 

2. What order?

 

5.      Answer to the above Points:-

 

1.  Partly Affirmative.

 

2.  As per final Order.

 

 

R E A S O N S:-

 

6.      Point No.1: After perusing the evidence of both parties and scanning the written arguments, it is evident and admitted fact that, the complainant has purchased the Washing machine from Op.No.3 for Rs.7,800/-, the same is manufactured by the OP.No.1 bearing Model No.GWS 6203 in this respect the complainant has produced receipt No.588 which is marked as Ex.P-1, which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant is a consumer as is defined under the provisions of the C.P. Act.

 

          Now the case of the complainant is that, the said purchase washing machine with two year conditional warranty as per warranty card which is marked as Ex.P-2 and further case of the complainant that, after six months of purchase the said washing machine, started giving problem on Dryer/Spinner Drum and the complainant has compelled to OP.No.2 on 25.01.2015, but nobody attended, once-again, complaint is register to OP.No.2, who is the customer service provider of the OP.No.1 and he could not solve the problem and he could not identify and rectify the same, even after lapse of six months of the complaint and therefore the complainant has issued legal notice to OP.No.1 & 2 on 08.06.2015 demanding the replacement of the said washing machine or refund the cost of the machine.

 

After receipt of the notice, the OP.No.2 authorized service person rectify the machine and told that, after replaced the motor of spinning drum, there will not be any problem, believing in the words of the OP.No.2, the complainant has agreed for repairs the said machine. For that contention, the complainant has substantiate the contention contended in complaint and the same is admitted by the OP in their written version that, as soon as complaint was lodged by the complainant in respect of machine is not worked, the OP has deputed a service man on dtd: 07.07.2015 and replaced the machine by OP.No.2. The said machine was stopped working, immediately the complainant brought the same to the notice of Op.No.1 & 2 and the OP.No.2 inspecting the machine and told that, the motor is faulty and out of order and informed that, no spares are available and went away and stated that, he has communicated the problem occurring to the said washing machine to the company. When, the OP himself admitted that, after replacement of  Spinner Drum towards motor of washing machine, then how the said machine stopped as not worked. After going through, the pleadings of the both parties, it is clear that, the replaced spinner drum by the OP was having some problem and the said problem has not been rectified and further the said problem towards washing machine is continued. This fact is proved by the complainant by leading evidence of complainant. when the OP has replaced the machine it means that, the said machine is defective, well knowingly by the OP the said machine has been replaced that itself is suffice to hold that, deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

 

Therefore, in our consider opinion, Ops have failed to proved that, the complainant started to miss handle the machine and also over loaded the machine and complainant has proved his case that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not rectifying or replacing the said spinner drum. Due to this, the complainant has suffered lot of hardship. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper, if we direct the OPs to repair the said washing machine by replacing the spinner drum defective part only in the said washing machine.    

 

So, we are of the considered view that, it would be just and proper to allow the complaint, by directing the OPs to repair the washing machine by replacing the said Spinner Drum part only with extend the fresh warranty of 6 months from the date of replacement and further the complainant is not entitle towards mental agony, but only the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Accordingly, we answer this Point No.1 in partly affirmative. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by partly allowed.

 

The OPs are hereby directed to repair the washing machine by replacing the said Spinner Drum part only with fresh warranty of 6 months from the date of replacement to the complainant.

 

Further, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-  being the cost of the litigation to the complainant.

 

          The order shall be complied within 10 weeks from the date of this order.

 

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 04^th day of January, 2017).

 

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.