IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 30th day of November, 2016
Filed on 07.12.2011.
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.400/2011
Between
Complainant: Opposite parties:
Mammen Varghese 1. IFB Industries Limited
Koyipalli House 36/1923, Substation Road
Karippuzha.P.O Kaloor,
Mavelikara – 690 109. Cochin-682 017
(By Adv. Vidhu.M.Unnithan)
2. IFB Customer Care Shinu Refrigeration
Sree Vihar, Angadical
Chengannur, Puthenkavu.P.O
(Adv.George Cheriyan)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed an order on 30.04.2012 as allowed. Since there was no detailed order, Honorable State Commission Suomoto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter.
2. The case of the complainant in short is as follows:
The complainant purchased an IFB Supreme deluxe washing machine from the 1st opposite party on 22/12/1998. The washing machine became defective in the year 2008 and the same was rectified by the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter 2nd opposite party insisted the complainant to take AMC( Annual Maintenance Contract) and accordingly the complainant has taken the AMC on 16- 12-2008 for a period of 1 year and the same was renewed till 15-12-2011. When the AMC was live the programme switch of the said washing machine is found defective and the defect was intimated to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties have not rectified the defect saying that the switch was not available. Since the switch was not replaced the complainant was forced to do the operations of the Washing Machine manually. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking replacement of the washing machine together with compensation and cost
2. The version of the opposite parties as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant purchased the product in the year 1998 and the product has 1year warranty. The warranty expired in the year 1999. No complaints were received during the warranty period. It is submitted that pleased with the prompt service of the opposite parties complainant for the first time taken an annual maintenance contract from 16/12/2008 for 1year, that too after 10 years. As per the terms of the AMC the opposite parties are liable to replace the damaged parts free of cost. The parts include only the mechanical parts and washing drum. The fiber parts are not covered under the Annual Maintenance Contract. The said AMC was renewed till 15/12/2011. It is respectfully submitted that the service requirement for the washing machine of the complainant made in 2008 was attended by the service engineer’s of the opposite parties. There is absolutely no defect in the washing machine of the complainant. The washing machine of the complainant is in good working condition. As per the history there was no service request lodged with his opposite party, as alleged. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties. The cause of action shown in the complaint is imaginary one. The complainant is no entitled for any of the relief prayed for e hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1to A6 were marked. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. Considering the allegation of the complainant and contention of the opposite parties the Forum has raised the following issues for consideration.
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief sought for?
5. Issues 1 & 2:
The case of the complainant is that the he had purchased a washing machine from the 1st opposite party in the year 1998. Thereafter in 2008 he has taken Annual Maintenance Contract from the opposite parties. The said Annual Maintenance Contract was renewed till 15-12-2011. During the period of AMC the programme switch of the washing machine became defective but the opposite party has not replaced the switch so far . So the complainant was forced to do the operations of the Washing Machine manually. Hence filed this complaint seeking replacement of the Washing Machine together with compensation and cost.
6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and document Ext. A1 to Ext. A6 were marked. Ext.A1 is the original Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) Dtd. 16-12-2008 for the period starting from 16-12-2008 to 15-12-2009. Ext.A2 is the Original Annual Maintenance Contract Dtd 12-8-2009 starting from 16-12-09 to 15-12-2010. Ext.A3 is the Original Annual Maintenance Contract Dtd. 27-11-2010 starting from 16-12-2010 to 15-12-2011. Ext.A4 marked as Subject to Objection) the Ext.A4 is the copy of letter Dtd. 19-11-2011 issued to the Opposite parties. Ext.A5 & Ext.A6 is Acknowledgment card.
7. The specific case of the complainant that during the AMC period the switch of the washing machine became defective and the opposite parties have not replaced the switch so far. Therefore he needs replacement of the washing machine. The point to be decided is that whether the opposite parties are liable to replace the product, if they cannot repair/replace the switch during the period of AMC on a perusal of the Terms and Conditions of Ext.A1, Ext.A2 and Ext.A3 We cannot see that there is such provision and it is pertinent to note that the machine was purchased in the year 1998 and the same is still working. So we cannot direct the opposite parties replace the Washing Machine as prayed for. But at the same time it is true that the complainant has availed the said Annual Maintenance Contract after remitting in an amount of Rs. 2406/- Since the opposite parties failed to replace the automatic switch the complainant could not enjoy the benefit of Annual Maintenance Contract. So we are of the opinion that the amount remitted for taking the Ext.A3 Annual Maintenance Contract for a period of 1year starting from 16-12-10 to 15-12-11 should be refunded together with cost of the proceedings.
In the result the opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.2406/-(Two thousand Four hundred and Six Only) with 9% interest from the 16-12-2010 till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- (Thousand only) towards cost. The order shall be compiled within 1month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2016.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member) :
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix
Evidence of the Complainants:
PW1 - Mammen Varghese (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Original Annual Maintenance contract Dtd.16/12/2008
Ext.A2 - Original Annual Maintenance contract Dtd.12/08/2009
Ext.A3 - Original Annual Maintenance contract Dtd.27/11/2010
Ext.A4 - Letter send to opposite party Dtd.19/11/2011
Ext.A5 - Acknowledgement Card.
Ext.A6 - Acknowledgement Card.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Bibin .P.B (witness)
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Comped . by:Pr/-
