BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

21^st DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to repair his washing machine and make it fully functional at the earliest or to give free of cost a new equivalent washing machine as replacement with all features fully functional or to pay the equivalent cost of a new front-load washing machine of similar capacity and compensate the inconvenience caused to him

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

          The complainant has bought an IFB Senator DX 6 Kg front-load washing machine on 17^th October 2009 from M/S Girias showroom, HRBR Layout, Bangalore-560043 by paying Rs.25,050/-.  The said washing machine had 4 years manufacturer’s warranty.  After the manufacturer’s warranty had expired, the complainant took the annual maintenance contract (AMC) for the washing machine on 2^nd October 2015.  The AMC cost was Rs.3,590/- and the validity is from 2^nd October 2015 to 1^st October 2016. 

On 5^th December 2015, the complainant contacted M/S IFB service centre since the front panel selector buttons of the washing machine stopped functioning.  This results in the operation of the machine only in its basic wash mode, as the pre-wash/ soak / delay start / Rinse option/spin select buttons cannot be selected.  The service token number issued to him was 1101163398 dated 05.12.2015.  The service centre did not respond to his complaint therefore complainant again re-registered the complaint and the new service token number issued to him was 1101291057 dated 23.12.2015.  The service executive who inspected the complainant’s washing machine identified it as failure of the circuit board inside the machine and informed the complainant that it needs to be replaced for repairing the machine. 

As the washing machine of the complainant is covered under AMC, the complainant requested the executive to do the needful for replacing the defective part at the earliest and restore the machine to fully working condition.  However, since the service person did not have the said part, he promised to check back with his stores and contact the complainant with a solution at a later date. After few reminders from the complainant’s side, the service centre sent one more executive who informed the complainant that the required board for this machine is no longer available and hence they would be able to replace it.  They are also unable to repair the defective part and make the machine fully functional.  During the past seven months, the complainant has contacted IFB many times to enquire what they really to do to solve his problem. But so far nothing has materialized. 

As the selector buttons in the front panel do not work, various options such as pre-wash, soak, delayed start etc., cannot be invoked.  These features are very essential for a working household.  But just after 6 years from purchase, the complainant has forced to manually do the pre-wash, soaking of soiled clothes and then transfer the clothes to the machine to complete the washing cycle.  Due to lack of delayed start option, it has become impossible to time the washing with the availability of helper at house to hang the clothes for drying.  M/S IFB is unable to repair the washing machine even though the faulty parts are covered by the AMC which is valid up to 1^st October 2016. Hence the complainant felt deficiency of service on the part of OP and approached the Forum for seeking necessary relief. 

3. After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OP.  Inspite of service of notice, OP remained absent without sufficient reason and cause.  Hence, OP is placed ex-parte and the case was posted for filing affidavit of the complainant. 

4. In support of the complaint averments, Mr Pradeep K. Peter, who being the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence, reiterating the complaint averments and produced documents. 

5. The above said assertions of the complaint have remained unchallenged.  OP neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant. 

6. Let us have a cursory glance at the documents produced by the complainant.  Document No.1 is the copy of cash/credit bill No.CRS HB/17346, dated 17.10.2009 for Rs.25,050/- for purchase of IFB senator DX 6 kg washing machine.  Document No.2 is the copy of invoice cum receipt for AMC/ Extended warranty card no 1015-014008 issued by OP for Rs 3,590/- dated 02.10.2015 to the complainant.  Document No.3 is the copy of e-mail dated 19^th August 2016 to OP requesting to repair the washing machine.

7. From the available materials placed on record, the failure of the OP to rectify the defect of the washing machine amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

8. The documents produced reveals that the complainant had purchased a washing machine which had 4 years warranty.  After the manufacturer’s warranty had expired, he took AMC for 1 year i.e., from 2^nd October 2015 to 1^st October 2016.  The problem started on 5^th December 2015.  When the complainant approached the OP for repairs, the OP did not respond to the complaint of the complainant.  When the complainant re-registered the complaint, the service executive who inspected the washing machine identified it is as failure of the circuit board inside the machine and informed the complainant that it needs to be replaced for repairing the machine.  Though the machine is covered under AMC and the complainant requested to OP to do the needful, the OP failed to do the same.  This conduct of OP amounts gross negligence and grave deficiency of service on his part.  This non-performance act of OP must have caused inconvenience, hardship and untold mental agony to the complainant who must have purchased the machine with his hard earned money.

9. The conduct of OP in not giving / providing proper service amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  We are satisfied that the complainant proved deficiency of service against OP. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that OP has to be directed to repair the washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant as per the annual maintenance contract and make it fully functional failing which OP shall refund Rs.3,590/- being the cost of AMC paid by the complainant with interest.  OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant along with the litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

10. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:      

                                   O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OP is directed to repair the washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant as per the annual maintenance contract and make it fully functional within four weeks from the date of this order failing which OP shall refund Rs.3,590/- being the cost of AMC paid by the complainant on 02.10.2015 together with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.  OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant along with the litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 21^st day of November 2016)

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 20.10.2016.

1. Sri.Pradeep K Peter

          OP  -       Absent

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln*