BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 185/2011 Filed on 04/06/2011
Dated: 26..05..2017
Complainant:
Dr. Lila Babu, Surabhi, TC.9/342, Plavila Road, Chenthi, Pongummoodu, Medical College-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Kulathoor S.V. Premakumaran Nair)
Opposite parties:
1. The In-charge, Home Care Consumer Cell Whirlpool of India Limited, Consumer Services Head Office, 28, NIT, Faridabad – 121 001.
2. The Manager, Hi-tech Solutions, Whirlpool Authorised Service Centre, TC.14/1733, opp: Ganapathy Coil, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Opp. parties 1 & 2 by Adv. R. Padmaraj)
This C.C having been heard on 18..04..2017, the Forum on 26..05..2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. P. SUDHIR, PRESIDENT:
Complainant’s case is that while the complainant’s husband was alive, she and her husband purchased a Microwave Oven and FF380L Refrigerator and Whirlpool White fully magic washing machine, which are the products of 1st opposite party. The said items were purchased believing the assurance given by the opposite parties in respect of their after sale service and prompt attending of complaint and also relying on the reputation of the company. The 2nd opposite party is the authorised service centre of the 1st opposite party, who is engaged in manufacturing home appliances. The 1st opposite party through advertisement and otherwise, informed all customers that the 2nd opposite party is their authorised service cell and prompt after sales service is available. The washing machine had a complaint of water leak during spinning. The 2nd opposite party was informed of the defect. A Service Engineer attached to the 2nd opposite party, Mr. Sreekumar came to the residence of the complainant and inspected the machine. After inspection he informed that the machine should be taken to the workshop to pin point the problem and he took the machine to the 2nd opposite party’s office. After two days, he informed that the bearing of the machine has some problem and an amount of Rs. 4,500/- is required for repairing. The complainant informed that she need not want to repair the machine and asked them to return the machine to her house. But even after repeated demands from the complainant, the machine was not returned till 18/8/2009. On 18/8/2009, the machine was brought to the house of the complainant without prior information in a dismantled condition and not fit for use. The machine was returned when the complainant was not in the house. On getting information, she rushed to the house and informed the persons who had brought the machine to take back it and return the same in the same condition as it was entrusted with them. On that day itself, they had taken back the machine. But so far, not returned the machine and thereafter, no information was received from the 2nd opposite party. The complainant and her late husband purchased a Microwave Oven on 8/4/2003. In May 2005, it became functionless and was taken for repair by the 2nd opposite party. It was told that there was PCB problem. PCB reprocessing was done, for which an amount of Rs. 2,500/- was collected from her by the 2nd opposite party. At the time of repair, 1st opposite party’s authorised dealer advised her to take AMC (Peace of Mind Plan). She took the same on 25/6/2003 for three years. During the said three years, no one visited the house for preventive service and none of the service coupons were utilized. In July, 2009, Microwave Oven showed error message. When it was informed to the 2nd opposite party, she was directed to take the same to the service centre to inspect the problem. On 31/7/2009, it was taken to service centre. The complainant was informed that the PCB has to be replaced and they demanded Rs. 4,500/- as repair charges. In fact, the complainant has AMC protection and so, the opposite parties are bound to give free service during the period of existence of AMC. Though this fact was informed to the opposite parties, nothing was heard about the Microwave Oven so far. The complainant had purchased home appliances believing the advertisement of the 1st opposite party that they are the one of the best manufacturers of home appliances. But her experience with the opposite parties is bitter. She never gets proper service. The act of the opposite parties is highly irregular and illegal and wilful cheating of the consumers. Their act caused much mental agony and sufferings to the complainant and complainant approached this Forum to return the Washing Machine and Microwave Oven defect free and for compensation.
2. Notice sent to opposite parties. 1st opposite party appeared and filed version. 2nd opposite party not turned up to file version. 2nd opposite party set exparte.
3. The contention taken by 1st opposite party in their version is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The averments regarding the complainant the purchasing of Microwave Oven, FF380L Refrigerator and whirlpool white fully magic washing machine is correct. The said purchase was made by the complainant long back in 18..4..2003. The complaint regarding the washing machine was reported on 10/09/2009. The Service Engineer of 1st opposite party immediately visited the house of the complainant and inspected the washing machine. The complaint was analysed that the bearing of the machine had to be replaced. The machine was brought to the service centre of the opposite party. But when the cost of the service charge along with the cost of bearing to be replaced was informed to the complainant, she was not willing to accept the amount and she did not want the machine to be repaired and asked the opposite parties to return the machine. The maximum period of warranty for the washing machine is two years. The 1st opposite party is bound to do free service only during the period of warranty. The said machine was purchased in the year 2003 and the complainant has used the machine without any complaint through out this period. The Microwave Oven was also purchased on 18/4/2003. The complainant had taken an AMC for a period of five years with regard to the Microwave Oven ie from 25/06/2003 to 26/4/2008. A complaint with regard to the PCB was reported on 10/9/2009 which was after the expiry of AMC period. The Service Engineers of these opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and inspected the Oven. The Service Engineers of these opposite parties found that the PCB of the said Oven had to be replaced and informed the complainant that the same will cost Rs. 4,500/-. The complainant was not ready to pay the said amount. Here also the said Oven was purchased long back in the year 2003 and the complainant had used the Oven trouble free all these years. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 1st opposite party. The opposite party had promptly attended the premises of the complainant whenever a complaint was reported. The opposite parties are still willing to give service to the products of the complainant.
4. Issues:
(i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?
4. Issues (i) & (ii): Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P8 marked. Opposite parties not turned up to cross the complainant. Opposite parties not filed chief. Perused the complaint and documents marked. The complaint is alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The date of purchase of Washing Machine as well as Microwave Oven is not made mention in the complaint. At the same time 1st opposite party’s contention is that the purchase of both Washing Machine and Microwave Oven is on 18/4/2003. It is seen that opposite party has attended for the service of both the machines, but the complainant was reluctant to accept the same with flimsy ground and approached this Forum for getting compensation. This Forum is not ment for making money. Complainant is abusing the process of law. This Forum cannot direct the opposite parties to do service free of cost after the warranty period and AMC over. We are of the opinion that complainant failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and we are constrained to dismiss the complaint without cost. Complainant is at liberty to take back the Washing Machine and Microwave Oven at her own cost.
In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 26th day of May, 2017
Sd/-P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad. Sd/-LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 185/2011
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : N I L
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of cash receipt of Home Care Solutions dated 18/5/2005
P2 : Copy of Field cash receipt of Home Care Solutions dated 14/6/2005
P3 : Copy of Collection / Delivery Note of Hi-Tech Solutions dated 25/7/2009
P4 : Copy of Collection / Delivery Note of Hi-Tech Solutions dated 27/7/2009
P5 : Copy of letter dated nil from the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
P6 : Copy of Letter No: KSCB/MCBR/Misc/1004/2016-17 dated 24/8/2016 of the Manager, Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Medical College Branch to complainant.
P7 : Copy of statement of inflation rate from 1992 to 2003
P8 : Copy of statement of inflation rate from 2003 to 2016
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : N I L
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Ad.
