Order-14.
Date-06/10/2015.
In this complaint Complainant SomenathBasuby filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased Haier Washing Machine, Model No. HW-55-1010 ME being Sl. No. CE0J20E0G00Cr E6L0183 manufactured by Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd. from M/s. Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. the distributor of washing machine for a sum of Rs. 18,500/- vide Invoice No. DA/SA/141517703 dated 15.10.2014 for absolute need of his domestic use.
But complainant was surprised to see that said washing machine started giving trouble from the day to day at the time of functioning and it was no doubt manufacturing defect such as discharging huge noise, automatically stopped while washing, washing is poor quality, electric shocking sometimes, improper service etc. and not in usable condition of the said washing machine.Several times complainant complained and informed over phone to the service center regarding the trouble of washing machine and the service engineer of op several times visited complainant’s residence and tried to rectify the defects and observed in the said washing machine but they were not able to rectify the defects of the washing machine as notified by the complainant since the defect is inherent manufacturing defect and not removable condition as a result the washing machine is in question and is in idle condition to the residence of the complainant.
Complainant submitted that the said defective washing machine supplied by the ops did not give proper service from the day to day and therefore the washing machine stopped working on 12.04.2015 permanently and is in idle condition as a result the complainant is being harassed from day to day and also complainant has been lost financially.
Complainant on 13.04.2015 complained to the service center in regard to non-functioning of the washing machine and one AvijitKundu the service engineer from the service centercalled on 16.04.2015 who tried to observe the defects of the said washing machine.But the said service engineer advised to the complainant that a piece of the washing machine is defective and it is better to get the machine be replaced by new one, otherwise washing machine will continue to give trouble and after verification the service engineer notified that the outer drum with the weight etc. is broken condition and since the said engineer was acted on behalf of the ops for which the engineer did not agree to make any written comment in the service record.
Complainant personally served notice upon the op by hand and service center with a request to replace the said washing machine having manufacturing defect within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice and they did not act and ultimately finding no other alternative, for their negligent and deficient manner of service and also for selling such type of defective washing machine, complainant has filed this complaint for redressal.
On the other hand op no.3 Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. by filing this complaint has submitted that he is seller of the same as dealer.But fact remains that complainant purchased the same and everything was demonstrated by the company’s engineer at the time of installment and if there is any manufacturing defect, in that case manufacturer is liable for that and op no.3 is no way liable for any compensation and he has no fault and for which any complaint against the op no.3 should be dismissed.
But op no.1 Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd by filing written statement submitted that the Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd. is a renowned brand company and has different product categories and working in the consumer electronics and home applicances industry since last 10 years and it is specifically mentioned that all the complaint of the complainant was registered on 17.10.2014, 22.10.2014, 26.10.2014, 16.03.2015, 18.03.2015, 13.04.2015, 24.04.2015 and 27.10.2015 and on all occasion except one engineer of the op went to the house of the complainant and inspected the washing machine.But in all the cases no fault was detected or manufacturing defect was not detected and ultimately it was found that Motor is not working and found weight balance (made up of concrete) broken and as a result outer drum broken and forthwith engineer asked the complainant for repair it at their workshop because it cannot be carried out at customer’s house but complainant did not agree for which that could not be properly repaired and truth is that the weight balance which was broken (made up of concrete) is not a manufacturing defect, it is not Motor or etc. and if it is removed and a new one is placed, in that case, there is no fault and op Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd is willing to do the same.But complainant is not willing to do that and placing for new one as warranty is there.It is the liability of the op to do that and op is willing to do that but only for negligent attitude of the complainant, the washing machine could not be properly treated, so only manufacturer and service center has no fault for which the complaint should be dismissed and the complainant may be directed to remove the said washing machine to the workshop of the op for repairing and op invariably refused for proper maintenance.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint and written version and also considering the argument of Ld. Lawyer for the complainant and further argument of the engineer of the Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd. who appeared before this Forum at the time of argument and further considering the job sheet, we find that in all cases that there was no defect but might be for some mishandling by the complainant, such sort of technical fault is detected but in all cases the engineers attended the call and as per job sheet it is found that the complainant signed and there was no defect and it was again operated by the complainant.But lastly on 16.04.2015 op’s engineer went to the residence of the complainant and it is found that outer drum weight balance was broken for which no doubt op asked the complainantto replace the same for repairing at the workshop because it cannot be done at the house of the complainant.Admitted position is that complainant did not permit the ops to remove the same because it is the common practice of the consumer within the warranty period praying for replacing a new one if any technicalities is found.But it cannot be the provision of law when warranty is there and ops is willing to repair it at free of cost.
Then it is the duty of the social consumer to handover the item to the op/manufacturer and for placing the same and when op/manufacturing company admitted that the outer drum balance is broken and it is a concrete made and it is not any part of the machine, but otherwise the motor etc. are okay.If same is placed, invariably the position of the machine would be as before.
Consideringall the above fact and circumstances, we have gathered that there is no scope to give the complainant a chance to get a new one when it is a new one and only the outer drum balance is broken and that is concrete made and it may be broken for different reason, for which the manufacturer cannot be blamed as manufacturing defect.At the same time it should be kept in our mind that Hon’ble Supreme Court already observed that when warranty is there, there is no question of replacing.When the motor is running okay, only a concrete weightis broken and if it is replaced the machine shall be as it is.
So, we find that only order can be passed by this Forum legally to give the relief to the complainant to direct the op manufacturing company to take the machine from the house of the complainant and to repair it properly, so that complainant can use it smoothly day to day when warranty is there and everything shall be done by the op service center and the manufacturing company at free of cost.
Considering the entire materials and the manner of complaint, we find that it has become a practice of the consumer to file a case to get a new one without taking the help of the manufacturer who are willing to give proper service or replacement of any part by the seller and such sort of activities of the consumer should be stopped, otherwise thousands of cases shall be filed by the consumers with a greedy habit.In this context it is to be mentioned that consumer must have some moral sense and when there is warranty and enjoy warranty relief,when manufacturer or service center are willing to give it at free of cost, but not to file any complaint again and again to harass and himself appear before the Forum and to waste time of the Forum in such a way.
In the result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly by allowing it but without any cost on the ground that complainant did not handover the article to the op/manufacturer for repairing the same.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest without any cost against the ops.
Op manufacturing company and also the it’s service center that is op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to take the said machine from the house of the complainant and complainant shall have to deliver it on proper receipt to the op nos. 1 & 2 or their authorized engineers and agent and op nos. 1 & 2 shall make it fit properly for using the same by the complainant without any further trouble and in this regard op nos. 1 & 2 shall thoroughly check it and make the same washing machine free from all troubles and hand over a certificate along with said washing machine after repairing to the complainant that is free from all defects.But everything shall be done within one month from the date of this order by the op nos. 1 & 2, in default op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay penal damages to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- to this Forum.
Op nos. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of this order and if it is found that it is not complied with, in that case ops shall have to replace new one washing machine and shall have to pay penal damages positively, otherwise penal proceeding shall also be started against them.
