HON'BLE MEMBER : SMT. JYOTI IYER

1. The above mentioned complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the Opponents alleging them of deficiency in services thereby for supplying washing machine with inherent manufacturing defects and further for directions to the Opponents to pay to the Complainant the cost price of the said defective machine to the tune of Rs. 21,000/-,1 lakh towards mental agony and torture and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2. The facts of the case in a nut shell are as follows:-

It is the case of the Complainant that he had purchased one washing machine of the Opponent company from one of its dealer at Thane namely M/s. Jain Traders on 10/06/2008 on payment of Rs.21,000/- towards its cost price. The warranty period of the said machine purchased by the Complainant is for two years from the date of purchase.

3. Further the contention of the Complainant is that within a span of one and half month the said machine developed the technical problems. There was excessive noise in the said machine therefore the Complainant lodged complaint and on 31^st July 2008 the mechanic of the Opponent Company recommended that the gear box of the said machine needs to be replaced Accordingly on 15/09/2008 the gear box of the said machine was replaced however within a period of two months the same problem started developing in the said machine and therefore complaint was lodged on 26/09/2008 regarding the excessive noise problem. Again the same noise problem and also water leakage problem arose in the said machine. On 03/10/2008 upon checking the said machine the mechanic again

.. 2 .. (Com.No. 769/2009)

concluded that the gear box was faulty and the base plate needed to be refitted. Accordingly the said defective machine was replaced with a new one Again in the month of September 2009 the Complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the excessive vibration and noise etc. in the said machine with the Opponent Company not for once, but eight times.

4. The Complainant submits that despite replacement of the said machine the problems of excessive noise and water leakage occurred in the said replaced machine.

5. The Complainant further submits that when the Opponent Company's did not respond the Complainant went to the dealer at Thane from whom he had purchased the said washing machine. It was learnt by the Complainant from the dealer i.e M/s. Jain Trader that the said model being no. Hitachi WM 80HJ was faulty and defective and therefore the said dealer stopped keeping the said mentioned machine of the Opponent Company for sale at their showroom.

6. The Complainant thereafter send the e-mail to the Opponent Company's Regional Sales Manager stating all the facts and asked the Opponent Company to refund the cost price of the said machine but the request of the Complainant was not acceded to. On the contrary the Opponent Company's representative via E-mail indicated that they will replace the gear box as a special case and extend the warranty of the replaced part for a period of 3 months from the date of purchase. The Complainant was not agreeable to the same and therefore this present Complaint was filed by the Complainant for aforementioned reliefs.

7. Pursuant to issuance of notice, from the record it appears that though the Opponents were duly served they failed to appear before us through their Advocates nor filed their W/Ss till date hence an ex-parte order dtd.27/09/2010 at the time of hearing was passed against the Opponents.

8. We heard the Complainant in person at length, perused the entire record and considered contentions raised by the Complainant. Our observations, findings reasons are as follows:-

The Complainant contends that the washing machine purchased by him from the Opponent Company's dealer i.e M/s. Jain Traders suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. The Complainant in support of his contentions has produced and relied upon the following documents at Exhibit – “4” which are as follows:-

1. Xerox Copy of invoice no. 57012 dtd 10^th June 2008 issued by M/s. Jain Traders standing in the name of the Complainant.

... 3 ... (Com. No. 769/2009)

2. Xerox copies of 8 Complaints lodged by the Complainant with the authorised service centre of the Opponent Company.

3. Xerox Copy of letter dtd.20/10/2009 addressed to the Opponent Company Regional Sales Manager by the Complainant.

4. Xerox Copies of 2 E-mails dtd. October 16^th 2009 and November 9^th 2009 sent by the Opponent Company to the Complainant.

8. On careful perusal of the above referred documents at Sr. no. 1 which is the Invoice/Bill no. 57012 issued by M/s. Jain Traders it is clearly seen that the Complainant had purchased a Hitachi Washing Machine 08 Kg being model no. WM80 HJ for Rs. 21,000/- on 10/06/2008 and further from the documents at Sr. No. 2 above which are Complaints reports dtd from the period 31/07/2008 to 28/09/2009. It is reflected from the various reports under the column action taken that the gear box was found faulty upon the complaint of the Complainant reading excessive noise problem and despite replacement of the gear box on 15/09/2008 Time and again the same noise problem re-occurred as seen from the report dtd.03/09/2009 Sr.No.20800252 again the gear box was found faulty hence the gear box was replaced. It is also reflected from the complaint report that water leakage problem also arose and therefore a replacement of the said defective washing machine was made with a new one. However the same problem occurred as reflected from report dtd.28/09/2009 and under the column action taken the gear box was reported to be noisy and pulsator was defective. It is also reflected from the document at serial no. 3 that time and again the same problems re-occurred. It is pertinent to note that the above documents mentioned at serial no.4 clearly reflect that the Opponent Company admitted that the gear box being faulty is being replaced as a special case and that the warranty period of the said part would be 3 months from the day its fixed. We are of the well considered view that since the said washing machine has a warranty of 2 year from the date of purchase in any subsequent defect found within 2 years would carry warranty of 2 years and not three months as contended by the Opponent Company it is pertinent to note that it was/is within the knowledge of the Opponent that said machine suffered from inherent manufacturing defects and therefore they abstained from coming before us. In our view the conduct of the Opponent Company regarding extension of warranty period upto 3 months after replacement itself would amount to deficiency in service. Further we are of the view that since the same defects regarding the gear box etc., time and again appeared in the said washing machines supplied by the Opponent Company it appears that the entire series of the said washing machines being model no. WM80 HJ manufactured by the Opponent

... 4 ... (Com. No. 769/2009)

Company was/is suffering from inherent manufacturing defects i.e the gear box is faulty and water leakage etc hence defective and therefore the same problems arose in the other replaced machines also. It would be unjust and unfair to the Complainant/Customers not to refund the cost price of the said defective machine. It is also pertinent to note that time and again the same defects arose hence the Complainant/Customers loose faith in the Brand and would naturally opt for refund which in our opinion is justified. It is pertinent to note that the invoice dtd.10/06/2008 issued by the dealer i.e M/s. Jain Traders at the footnote indicates that warranty is by manufacturer/distributor only. Warranty is against repairs and not replacement of any product. Since in the present case the Opponent Company has in categorical term admitted to replace the faulty gear box and time and again the inherent manufacturing defects kept occurring in the various machines supplied by the Opponent Company, this statement printed in the invoice would not come to the rescue of the Opponent Company as the defects appear to be inherent. The Opponent Company being of such stature should bear in mind as Image/Brand building is a slow process however in a jeffy the brand image is ruined further the Opponent Company should make themselves easily assessable to the public at large for redressal of the grievances of the common man.

9. In view of the above discussion and from the over all appreciation of the facts and circumstances and cogent documentary evidence filed in support of his contentions by the Complainant and further by filling an affidavit reiterating the contents of his complaint and also bearing in mind that since the Opponent Company neither appeared nor filed its W/S it appears that it is very much within their knowledge that they have supplied the said washing machine which suffers from inherent manufacturing defects. We therefore find substantial truth and force in the contentions raised by the Complainant and also we feel that the Complainant and his family members must have gone through immense mental agony and torture not only for having being supplied with a inherent defective washing machine which has not been in use right from the inceptions and just lying without being used for the last 6 months despite making the requisite payment, hence we can safely conclude that the Opponent is deficient its services. Further there is not an iota of doubt in our minds that the Complainant and his family members were so much so constrained due to the conduct of the Opponent that for the redressal of there grievances they had to file the present complaint and that the Complainant should be compensated for the same to meet with the ends of justice. Hence the following order:

... 5 ... (Com. No. 769/2009)

ORDER

1.The Opponent is directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 21,000/-(Rs. Twenty One Thousand Only) towards cost price of the said defective washing machine suffering from inherent defects.

2. The Opponent is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/-(Rs. Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards the mental agony, torture etc.

3. The Opponent is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/-(Rs. Two Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards cost of litigation.

4. The Opponent is directed to comply with this order within 4 weeks from the receipt of the copy hereof.

5. Certified Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties free of cost.

THANE

DATE : 07/10/2010

(JYOTI IYER) (M.G.RAHATGAONKAR)

MEMBER PRESIDENT