COMPLAINT FILED ON:19.09.2011
DISPOSED ON:22.08.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
22nd DAY OF AUGUST 2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | Premkumar S/o Late S.M.Govindaraju, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.14, 6th Cross, Kilari Road, Bangaloe-560 052. Adv:Sri.G.S.Venkat Subbarao V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | 1. IFB Industries Limited, Plot No.IND-5, Sector-1 East Kolkata Town, Kolkata-700 078. 2. M/s Rajatha Marketing CBI Road, HMT Layout, Ganganagara, Bangalore-560 032. 3. M/s Giria’s Investments Pvt Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act No.34/1A, I Main, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009. Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as Ops) to pay sum of Rs.26,050/- being the cost of the washing machine or in the alternative to replace the washing machine supplied and to award sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2. In spite of service of notice, OPs failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
3.The complainant filed affidavit evidence to substantiate complaint averments and additional affidavit evidence.
4. Arguments from complainant’s side heard.
5. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that the complainant purchased a Brand New IFB washing machine from the Authorized Dealer of OP1 that is M/s Girias Investments (P) Limited, (OP3) under a Cash Bill dt.29.12.2010 for a valuable consideration of Rs.26,050/- ‘warranty for the machine purchased was one year from the date of it’s purchase. After using the washing machine for a period of 2 to 3 months, the same developed technical defect and had become unusable. In view of the same, the complainant contacted the 2nd OP being Service Provider who upon inspection informed the complainant that a board in the washing machine is damaged and same needs to be repaired. The washing machine purchased was brand new one and it stands to no reason nor logic to accept that there was a technical problem immediately after its purchase. The washing machine supplied to the complainant being one of the sub-standard qualities, the complainant approached OP2 on several occasions and he was informed that the technical persons would come and rectify the mistakes. In spite of several requests and demands, OP2 failed to rectify the mistake and the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice. After the legal notice OP2 effected repairs and since the defect could not be rectified, OP2 replaced the washing machine by new one. Even the new washing machine/replaced washing machine has got a technical problem and the same makes a huge noise when the same is being put to use. OP3 is the Dealer of the washing machine, the complainant when contacted, the Dealer informed the complainant that the particular part of the washing machine called Drum is defective in nature and same is causing such a noise. The complainant requested OP2 to rectify the said mistake, though the technical persons of OP2 attempted to repair the said washing machine, the same is yielding no results. Washing machine continues to have the same problem and the same is making a huge noise when it is put to use. Therefore, it is clear that the washing machine supplied to the complainant is defective in nature and same is sub-standard one. Ops are required to replace the washing machine with a brand new one. The supply of defective washing machine and also not attending to the problem of the defective washing machine amounts to deficiency in service. In the event of replacement is not feasible the cost of washing machine is to be refunded.
The document produced by the complainant clearly goes to show that the complainant has purchased the washing machine by paying an amount of Rs.26,050/- under the machine bill dt.29.12.2010 from OP3 the Authorized Dealer. Within warranty period the washing machine supplied was found defective and the same was replaced. The replaced washing machine was also having the problem of making huge noise while it is put to use. Thus it becomes clear that there is a manufacturing defect in the washing machine supplied and the washing machine replaced. The supply of defective washing machine by Ops amounts to deficiency in service. No purpose would be served with a direction to replace another washing machine, as the replaced washing machine was also found to be defective. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that Ops are liable to refund the amount of Rs.26,050/- the cost of the washing machine and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Ops are directed to refund an amount of Rs.26,050/- and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant and get back the washing machine.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd DAY of AUGUST-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
