JUDGEMENT
The complaint has arisen as per a complaint lodged by Asit Kumar Mehra, Ruby Palace Lane, Burdwan against OP Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. as per Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986. In brief the case of the complainant is as follows:-
That the complainant has purchased a washing machine manufactured by Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. from OP No. 4 bearing Model No. GFT 600F/White vide Tax Invoice No. 04712, dated 24.5.2007 for the household use. After one year from the date of purchase the machine started trouble a lot and there was huge noise. The complainant intimated the said fact to the OP and the service people of OP came to the house of the complainant, examined the washing machine, did something and ultimately the noise was reduced but there after on and from system of the machine
1
continued to trouble. The service people of the OP verbally were informed regarding complaint that the machine was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect and the complainant intimated the said fact to the Ops and requested them to change the defective washing machine as it was under coverage of 24 months warranty. But the Ops did not comply the request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The problem of the washing machine continued and lastly during the month of April 2010 the washing machine stopped working and the complainant requested several times to the OP No 3, who is authorized service provider of the OP, but the OP No 3 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and they did not take any proper step to remove the defects which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. However, as per complaint one Mr. Azizur of OP No 3 came to the house of the complainant and took away the disputed machine to the workshop on 01.6.2010 and since then the machine is lying in their custody. It may be noted that the wife of the complainant who is the real beneficiary of the machine has been compelled to wash clothes with hands since Aril 2010 and for that reason since May 2010 she has been started suffering from severe spondilytis pain etc. and the complainant has been compelled to purchase a new washing machine manufactured by LG Company. The complainant made several representations in writing on 15.9.2010, 21.10.2010 & 15.11.2010 to the Ops requested them to look into the matter seriously and to solve the problem but the Ops did not take any effective step to solve the problem of the complainant. Thereafter the OP No. 2 issued a letter dated 02.12.2010 to the complainant and in the said letter OP No 2 stated that ASP M/s. Appliance Service Ltd. had taken the washing machine of the complainant in their workshop for repairing purpose and found Tub and Spider Assay needed to be changed, after inspecting the product estimate was Rs. 3,500=00 including parts cost and service charge but the complainant refused to pay the amount. In the said letter OP No 2 also alleged that M/s. Appliance Service had tried many times to deliver the washing machine at the place of the complainant but the complainant not accepted the same. But the fact remains that the complainant said the Ops that as the washing machine was under the period of coverage for the period of 24 months and the defect was cropped up within the warranty period, so the OP cannot claim charge of Rs. 3,500=00 including parts cost from the complainant which violates the terms and conditions of purchasing of washing machine. Accordingly Ops’ claim of Rs. 3,500=00 was in violation of the terms and conditions which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. During warranty period the problem cropped up and ultimately the machine stopped running which was due to inherent manufacturing defects in the machine. The cause of action of this case firstly arose on 24.5.2007 and finally on 01.6.2010. The complainant claims relief as under:-
2
(a) Refund of the entire amount of Rs. 14,790=00 to the complainant in lieu of the defective machine,
(b) Rs. 70,000=00 as compensation for mental pain and agony,
(c) Rs. 10,000=00 as litigation cost,
(d) and/or to pass such other or further order or order as your honour may deem fit and proper.
OP in the written version has denied the allegations. OP has further stated that the said machine was purchased on 24.5.2007 and as per norms of the company it was covered for two years warranty period from the date of purchase. The warranty period of the said machine expired on 24.5.2009 and during that period the complainant never informed in his written complaint to that effect that the machine found defective and it reveals from the complaint in Para No. 3 that the complainant has clearly mentioned that the complainant’s wife compelled to wash clothes with hands since April 2010 so it is presumed that the machine was performing in a perfect manner up to the month of March 2010 i.e. after eleven months from the warranty period i.e. from 24.5.2009. So the complainant is not entitled to get any warranty benefit from the OP No 1&2 as because the machine was not working properly after the end of the warranty period and it is the terms and conditions of the company that if any product found any problem after the warranty period then the customer has to pay charges of the product and the customer is entitled also to give service charges to that effect. So the case made out by the complainant is not tenable and the prayer of the complainant may be dismissed and rejected with compensation for harassing the Ops.
The complainant has submitted documents like warranty card, Tax Invoice, service card and correspondences with Ops dated 15.9.2010. 21.10.2010 & 15.11.2010 and subsequent reply of the same by the Ops dated 02.12.2010.
DECISION WITH REASONS:-
From compilation of documents and statements of both the parties it is observed that the complainant purchased one Godrej & Boyce make washing machine from OP No 4 who is authorized dealer of the OP No 1 i.e. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. The warranty period of the said machine was for two years that its warranty was to end on 24.5.2009. From the complaint of the complainant it has been alleged that after one year from the date of purchase the complainant found that the machine started trouble and huge noise which was rectified by the Ops. But in service card there is no reflection of his repair or its complaint. Card says that there was no complaint during warranty period which was repaired at service centre. From the complainant’s claim for its
3
defective sound which was made after one year is not reflected in service card or even the complainant’s document for repairing dated 15.9.2010, 21.10.2010 or 15.11.2010. It is not understood what prevented the complainant to make written complaint in this way during the warranty period. As the warranty was for two years which was to end on 24.5.2009 and from complainant’s statement it is seen that the complainant’s wife was compelled to wash clothes with hands since April 2010 which was after warranty period. This statement of the complainant also stands negative that the machine was not functioning since after one year of purchase rather it reflects that before April 2010 the machine was functioning. As per warranty card the complainant was entitled for free service and free repair up to 24.5.2009 and as the said machine was repaired after that period the cost of the repairing is to be borne by the complainant and not the Ops.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complainant will take delivery after paying the repairing cost i.e. Rs. 3,500=00 (Rs. Three thousand five hundred) only from the Ops. Accordingly, the case of the complainant fails.
Dictated & corrected by me.
(Durga Sankar Das)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Durga Sankar Das)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
