Complaint filed on: 21-10-2010
Disposed on: 15-02-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2410/2010
DATED THIS THE 15th FEBRUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Vinay.N. S/o. Nagaraja Rao JM
No.1089, 10th Main RPC layout,
Vijayanagar, 2nd stage,
Bangalore-40
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. IFB Industries Limited,
Manager, No.16/17,
Off White field Road,
Visveswaraiah Industrial Estate,
Mahadevapura, Bangalore-48
2. Manager, Girias Investment (P)
Limited, No.1035/125, 20th Main
Road, 5th Block, W.O.C. Road,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10
3. IFB Industries Limited,
G.Dasgupta, President and CEO,
IND-5, Secto-1,
East Calcutta Township,
Kolkata-700 107
O R D E R
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER.
The grievance of the complainant against Ops in brief is that the complainant had purchased an IFB washing machine from the authorized dealer who is Op2 in this complaint. Op 1 is the manufacturer of IFB brand. On 22/10/2008 complainant paid Rs.19,150/- through credit card and purchased IFB washing machine during the time of Diwali offer. Op has announced as rolled out offer of scratch card, 4 years warranty and 4 kg of free washing powder was offered for the purchase during that period. The complainant purchased it for his aged parents who are living at Arasikere, for their convenience. Hence the complainant asked Op to book courier for transporting it to Arasikere and even he paid for transportation. Op assured immediately it reaches Arasikere and the representative of the Op install the machine. The washing machine was delivered at his parent’s place on 28/10/2008, he informed the Op and asked him to send representative to install the same. One Mr.Aloysius agreed to come and install the machine. Since October 2008 till February-March 2009 Op didn’t send anybody to install. Even Mr. Aloysius, finally in the month of February-March-2009 Op installed it. After it was started for using the washing machine was found defective as the machine is fully automatic it was not completing its cycle and stop automatically at the end of the wash. The complainant preferred automatic machine for his parents so that they need not operate. But the machine was not ending the cycle, and was kept on taking water without ending the wash cycle even after 4-5 hours which resulted in loss of water and electricity. The problem with the machine was intimated to customer representative of Op1 in April 2009. Op 1 assured to his problem within 24 hours but Op1 after several requests prolonged the issue without solving it. After six months of raising the complaint, technician inspected but was unable to solve the problem and also the technician took undue advantage of ignorant and aged parents of the complainant. But the problem was not rectified by the technician. The complainant again started to follow up the Op customer care but nobody attended the defective machine till today. Op announced the offer of 4kg washing kit with the machine which is not delivered. Op1 has sent washing kit on 1/6/2009 kit included 4 items like surf excel powder of 1kg, IFB Limo 200gms, IFB Protecta 200 gms, and IFB Fabo 100ml which will never turn up to 4kg. The complainant submitted that he appointed a maid servant to assist his mother in washing clothes even after purchase of fully automatic washing machine which is financial burden for him. Ops are misleading by advertising false representation and offers and gifts. However, the machine carries 4 years warranty i.e till 20/20/2012, Ops have failed to attend the problem and not delivered washing kit after several requests and complainant alleged that Ops are deficient in their service. Hence, the complainant approached this forum to seek direction to Ops to refund the cost of washing machine of Rs.19,150/- with 10% interest, delivery of kit, and Rs.50,000/- for physical strain, mental agony and cost.
2. Notices sent to Op 1 and 2 only which were duly served. Op1 appeared through his counsel and filed his statement of objection. Op 2 was absent on the date of appearance, Hence, he is placed exparte. Op1 contended that Op technician visited the complainant’s parents house to install the machine but they refused to permit him to install asking the technician to come when their son returned from Bangalore. Due to non compatibility of time between the arrival of the complainant and the technician, the installation was delayed. There is no fault in delay of installation from the part of Op. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint the complainant and OP1 have filed their affidavit evidences reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of receipt issued by Op 2, copy of warranty card, copy of receipt of VRL courier which is sent to Arasikere, copy of delivery challan issued when the washing kit sent by Op1. Heard the arguments of the complainant who is in person and counsel for Op 1, and perused the records.
4. On the above materials, following points for determination arise.
1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused delay in installing washing machine and also caused deficiency in their service in not attending the defective washing machine?
2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: See the Final order
REASONS:
6. Answer on point No.1: The complainant had paid Rs.19,150/- for the purchase of fully automatic washing machine from Op 2 to deliver it to the house of the complainant’s parents who stayed in Arasikere. After the delivery though the complainant informed to Op, Ops delayed in installation by 4 months after its purchase. The machine was purchased on 22/10/2008, it was installed in the end of the February-2009 which was conceded by the counsel for Op 1. According to Op1 the delay caused due to the non co-operation by the parents of the complainant in not allowing the technician to install due to absence of complainant and non compatibility of time in accordance with the complainant and technician. As against the allegations of the complainant that the OPs did install the Washing Machine for about four months and that caused inconvenience to him, the Ops have categorically stated, that when their technician went to the house of the parents of the complainant, but they did not cooperate with him to install and demonstrate the Washing Machine and told him to go for installation when their son, the complainant is present. The complainant has not seriously disputed this statement of the Ops. The statement of the Ops, in this regard appears to be natural. Because as admitted by the complainant, his parents are in their old age residing in Arasikere naturally when stranger goes for installation must have stated to go for that work when their son is present, as they did not like to take the risk. It is not even the case of the complainant that in this four months gap, he had addressed any communication to the Ops, inviting their attention to the delay in installing the Washing Machine and calling them to go and install at any time, whenever it was convenient to him. We find no such communication took place between the parties in that course of four months as such we are not finding adequate materials to pin point the default either the complainant or OPs regarding delay in installation of the Washing Machine.
7. Apart from delay, complainant informed about the misfunctioning of the machine within one month of his usage, Ops have not attended the problem of the complainant. The complainant requested several times to the customer care of Ops and filed complaint under customer ID no.177431. One or the other reason Ops dragged the matter until ceases six months. Later stage, one technician attended and could not sort out the problem. Then also Ops never think about the alternate remedy to solve complainant’s problem. Though the said machine carries warranty period, Ops could find either rectify the defect or replace it by new machine as it has manufacturing defect. It shows their negligence towards the customers in attending the grievances of the customers. Op contended the same reason as the parents were not co-operating with Op to inspect the machine. It cannot be believed that if the person came from the company to repair the machine, nobody will stop him to repair because the misfunctioning of machine causes inconvenience to them.
8. Even Ops announced gift offer of 4 kg washing kit with every purchase of washing machine as Diwali offer. The same is not delivered to the complainant till 1/6/2009. Finally, Op 1 sent a kit which is not of 4 kg as assured. It is only weighing of 1 ½ kg. The claim of the complainant regarding the washing kit is not denied by the Op 1. Ops are misleading the consumers by inviting the attention of the consumers with wrong adverting, later not fulfilling as assured.
9. Since he and his old aged parents suffered hardship with delay in installation of washing machine, supplied machine was defective by the Ops and it is neither rectified nor replaced though machine carries warranty period till 2012 since from the month of April 2009. Though the Complainant requested orally through phone and registered the complaints with customer care centre of Op, not responded properly and attended the problem. Ops failed to deliver offered items to the complainant, these all amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and liable for the claims of the complainant. The complainant proved the deficiency in service of Ops and he is entitled for compensation for the mental agony, hardship and inconvenience.
10. The grievance of the complainant can not be disbelieved since Op2 has not appeared though the notice was duly served on him. Therefore we find deficiency in the service of OPs and therefore Ops are liable to answer to the short coming caused by him. At the time of arguments, the counsel representing the OP No.1 submitted that OP is ready to rectify all the defects of the Washing Machine free of cost as it’s within the warranty period. We find that, the complaint is to be allowed, accordingly and we pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is allowed.
Ops No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally are directed to rectify all the defects in the Washing Machine of the complainant at his parent’s house in the presence of the complainant by intimating him in writing to be present on the particular day free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order. Failing to do so, Ops are directed to refund Rs.18,150=00 after deducting Rs.1,000=00 towards depreciation within 15 days, thereafter failing to do so, they shall pay interest at 12% per annum on that amount from the date of this order till the date of payment.
Ops are directed to pay Rs.3,000=00 as damages for inconvenience, mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.
Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000=00 to the complainant.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 15th February 2011.
Member Member President
