Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/1409

K.S. Krishna Kumar Iyengar - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Limited - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 16.08.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 24.10.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1409/2014

DATED THIS THE 24^th OCTOBER OF 2017

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

K.S.Krishnakumar Iyengar, No.42, 7^th cross,

1^st Main, Srinidhi Layout, Bengaluru-62

 

• In person   

 

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

 

IFB Industries Ltd.,

(Home Appliances Division), No.17, Vishweshwaraiah Industrial Estate,

Off. Whitefield road, Mahadevapura Post,

Bengaluru.

 

By Adv.Sri.Vinodkumar.B.N.

 

  

 

 

 

ORDER

 

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite party, in not replacing the drum of the IFB washing machine, free of cost and thereby has claimed the compensation amount of Rs.86,125/-.    

 

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that in response to his letter dtd.05.03.13 to the customer service of the Opposite party, his IFB washing machine was inspected but not repaired and the drum was not replaced free of cost, despite obtaining the annual maintenance contract 2015 on payment of Rs.2,125/- with the Opposite party and the said non-compliance made him to get it repaired at other place on 11.08.14 by paying Rs.6,500/- and during the said period, he was constrained to get the service of maid servant for washing of cloths at the total amount of Rs.21,000/- and thereby the Opposite party becomes liable to pay the total compensation amount.

 

          3. The Opposite party in his version contended that there is no cause of action to file this complaint. The material facts were suppressed by the Complainant and concocted grounds were created and such documents were produced. The 10 years old IFB washing machine was the subject matter of the annual maintenance contract for the period from 14.08.13 to 13.08.14 and it was subject to the terms & conditions. It was not having the warranty period. On receipt of the complaint, the machine was inspected and then noticed the rusted drum, for which the Complainant had to pay the cost of the drum to do their service freely. But instead of doing so, the Complainant who raised objection, finding fault with the technical assistant, filed this complaint on false and untenable grounds which becomes liable to be dismissed.  

 

          4. The Complainant and the Senior Service Executive of the Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences. The Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 to A3 documents. No defence documents are produced by the Opposite party. The Complainant has filed the written arguments. Arguments were heard.         

 

                   

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

 

1. Whether the complainant establishes that not replacing of rusted drum, free of cost by the Opposite party under alleged annual maintenance contract amounts the deficiency in their service ?  
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

 

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

 

REASONS

 

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The Complainant wide annual maintenance contract/Ex-A1, wanted to get the service of the Opposite party for the period of one year starting from 14.08.13 to 13.08.14. He had paid Rs.2,125/- towards the service charges. He had the IFB washing machine and got it repaired on 11.08.14 at Eazy Cooling Service on payment of Rs.6,500/- as per Ex-A2 and it shows that he got the new drum replaced with old drum of the IFB washing machine.

 

          8. The terms & conditions printed on the back of Ex-A1 show the necessity of the compliance by both the parties. There were 18 terms & conditions. It was specifically noted that the rust parts are not covered under this contract. The condition no.12 says that defects due to negligence, misuse, alternations and substitution of original components and riots, fire, floor,   earthquake and other acts of God are not covered under contract and such repairs shall be done on chargeable basis as per the prevailing rates. The condition no.1 says that the AMC is valid only for machines in good working conditions as certified by their service personnel.

 

          9. The Opposite party has specifically contended that the IFB washing machine of the Complainant was more than 10 years old and its warranty period was also not in existence as expired long back. The Complainant in his evidence also has not stated about the year of purchase of IFB washing machine nor stated about the expiry of the warranty period, but he has gone to the extent of saying that the Managers of the Opposite party themselves are not competent to get his machine in working condition and thereafter he got it repaired with other agency on payment basis. He has not stated whether he was ready to pay the cost of the new drum to the Opposite party, for replacing rusted drum. No documents are placed by the Complainant to show that the inspection, in response to his complaint conducted by the Opposite party was followed by the report and the recommendations. The annual maintenance in terms of the Ex-A1 is not for converting old parts in to new parts of the washing machine free of cost. It appears that the Complainant has misunderstood the concept of maintenance contract. It is not his allegation that though he is ready to provide the cost of the required spare parts, the Opposite party failed to render its services. In the absence of such evidence, the complaint is itself becomes untenable and deserves to get dismissal order as there was no cause of action to file this complaint. Hence, the Complainant failed to establish the Consumer Dispute no.1 and accordingly it is answered in the negative.

 

10. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1, the Complainant deserves to get the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The CC.No.1409/2014 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 24^th October of 2017).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(VASANTHKUMAR.H.Y)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Invoice cum receipt dtd.03.08.13
Ex-A2	Repair charges to replace the drum inside the machine dtd.11.08.14
Ex-A3	Receipts for having paid salary to the housemaid for washing cloths dtd.11.08.14

 

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

-NIL-

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(VASANTHKUMAR.H.Y)  PRESIDENT