Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/220/2013

D.Muthuraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.Muniraj

22 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 18.06.2013

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 05.09.2022

                                                     Date of Order               : 22.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,      :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc.,MBA., : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.220/2013

THURSDAY, THE 22^nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Mr. D. Muthuraj,

No 10, Periyar Street,

B.V. Puram,

Avadi, Chennai-54.                                                        ... Complainant             

 

..Vs..

1.Chairman and Managing Director,

   M/s. IFB Industries Ltd,

   New No 6, Old No 37,

   Near AVM Rajeshwari Cinema Hall,

   Arcot Road,

   Vadapalani,

   Chennai-600026.

 

2.The Manager,

   M/s. I Matrix Consultancy (A franchisee of M/s. IPB Industries Ltd),

   No. 123, M.T.H. Road, 1^st Floor,

   Indian Bank Upstairs,

   Ambattur,

   Chennai-600053.

 

3.Shri. Ramdoss,

   Service Technician,

   M/s. I Matrix Consultancy (A franchisee of M/s. IFB Industries Ltd),

   No. 123, M.T.H. Road, 1^st Floor, Indian Bank Upstairs,

   Ambattur,

   Chennai-600053.                                                 ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant                    : M/s. A. Muniraja

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party            : M/s.V.T.Narendiran

Counsel for the 2^nd& 3^rd Opposite Parties  : Exparte

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund the AMC amount of Rs.4774/- with interest and to replace all the defective and rusted parts of the washing machine with new parts and direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for insulting, cheating, medical cost, inconvenience, mental agony, physical pain, monetary loss an for all the hardship faced by the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

On 23.07.2008 the Complainant had purchased IFB Washing Machine of Model: ELITE 5 Kg manufactured by 1^st Opposite Party from M/s. Chellamani&Co,Pattibiram. From first month of purchase of the subject washing machine there was water leaking from the Washing Machine. Though initially his complaints made for the leaking was attended but the same was not rectified in full. He was forced to operate the washing machine with the minor water leakage. Water leakage in the subject washing machine exist till date, due to which the cabinet itself has got rusted and the electrical wires have been also damaged resulting in electric shock due to earth current leakage caused by the wetness of water leakage.  On 28.09.2012 the Washing Machine did not function, a complaint was registered on the same day in the website of 1^st Opposite Party. On 29.09.2012, the 3^rd Opposite Party an employee of the 2^ndOpposite Party attended the service. It was informed by him that for running of the machine 3 numbers of Water regulator Valve has to be replaced compulsorily with new ones as the same cannot be repaired. Further, the third Opposite Party insisted to apply for Annual Maintenance contract (AMC) as it costs only Rs. 4774/- as the service would be free for 2 years and any defective parts including rubber & plastic parts would be replaced free of cost during those 2 years of AMC, whereas without AMC the 3 nos. of Water Regulator Valve itself would cost nearly Rs 8000/-.  At the insistence of the 3^rd Opposite Party, on 30.09.2012 he paid a sum of Rs.4774/- vide cheque no. 153407 dated 30.09.2012 of State Bank of India in favour of M/s. IFB Industries Ltd to the 3^rd Opposite Party. Only on receipt of the cheque that 3^rd Party had informed that the AMC documents would reach within 2 months only thereafter on fresh complaint the parts could be replaced. He left with no choice than to wait with the dysfunctional washing machine for the AMC documents, as without which the repaired part could not be replaced. During which period his wife who is 52 years old had to wash all the clothes manually and thereafter as detailed below, which has caused her severe pain in back, legs and hands.  Even after elapse of two months AMC documents did not reach him. Thereafter, he gave a new complaint to the first Opposite Party on 09.12.2012 vide Complaint No. 9984889. On 13.12.2012 the 3^rd  Opposite Party attended the service and to his grave shock, he repaired the 3 nos. of Water Regulator Valve within minutes without replacing with new spares and informed that AMC will not cover all parts for replacement and he has to bear the cost of rubber & plastic spares. The receipt for the purchase of the spare that needs to be replaced for making the Washing Machine functional, for which the 3^rd Opposite Party informed that he would bring the spare and invoice the very next day but he never turned up again to replace the defective parts. He could not operate the washing machine as it was not repaired at all. The behaviour of the 3^rd Opposite Party shows how he cheats the senior citizens and indulges in Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency of Service.  Hence an another technician was requested to be sent by the 2^nd Opposite Party, though assured had not sent, which shows that the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party in collusion cheated the customers and indulged in Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency of Service. The subject machine was lying in inoperative state for more than four months, hence on 13.01.2013 again he gave a complaint in the website of the 1^st Opposite Party and the same was registered under No:10163141. Thereafter, the 3^rd Opposite Party came and repaired the washing machine and made it to function after getting the cost of the spare that was replaced but the water leakage didn't stop from the washing machine, for which the 3^rd Opposite Party promised to come back and rectify the water leakage in next couple of days but he never turned up. A Complainant in the next month itself i.e., February, 2013 was lodged in the website of the 1^st Opposite Party and another service technician working in the 2^nd Opposite Party's company visited and rectified the leak in the washing machine by cleanings some valves, few days later again the water started leaking from the washing machine and again a complaint (Complaint number: 10382315) was given in the website of the 1^st Opposite Party on 17.03.2013 again the leakage was stopped for temporarily only by the service technician. Till now in spite of numerous complaints given to the opposite parties, there is no effective response from the opposite parties. This negligent and irresponsive behaviour of the opposite parties is forcing the Complainant to operate the washing machine in the defective condition. Thereby the washing machine cabinet itself has got rusted and the electrical wires have been also damaged. For the fault in the washing machine with respective parts the company has to bear the cost for replacement, they kept on repaired the defective part without replacing it with new spare though the defective part has fully damaged and needs to be replaced. Further, he was cheated and made fool by the opposite parties by insisting him to purchase AMC so that all defectives parts could be replaced free of cost and thereafter charging him for all the spares that were replaced and never replaced any spare free of cost according to AMC. Thereby the opposite parties have caused great difficulty both physically, mentally and monetarily to him and his family.  Later he came to know that the website of the 1^st Opposite Party has mentioned AMC was Rs.4700/- whereas the 3^rd opposite in collaboration with the 2^nd Opposite Party had collected Rs. 4774/-, Rs.74 more. From the website the first Opposite Party claimed that the AMC includes replacing defective part including rubber and plastic parts the washing machine free cost. It was informed to him that AMC does not include replacing the parts and requested to pay charges for spare that was replaced, the 3^rd Opposite Party gave insulting and lethargic reply as the complaint was given online to get the same through online. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were hand in glove together in cheating him in all possible ways and treating the customers in rude and rash manner. In spite of several numbers of complaints made, till date he was not provided with the AMC documents and till date there is water leakage in the washing machine which has caused the cabinet and the door of the washing machine to be rusted fully. The Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service, unfair and deceptive trade practice and faulty and defective service. The negligent, deficient and rash acts of the opposite parties have put the Complainant to great inconvenience and hardship. As the washing machine could not be operated for many months his wife had to wash clothes manually which has caused great hardship to her physically and mentally. Now his wife is undergoing treatment for pain in backbone, legs and hands which was caused due to washing clothes manually. Hence the Complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

        The very complaint does not constitute a consumer disputes under the consumer protection act and is an abuse of process of law and the complaint has been filed with an oblique motive and the same is inadmissible for want of facts, detail and material facts. And also not maintainable as the Complainant has failed to make out a case and sought for a relief beyond the agreed terms and conditions between them. There is no truth in the Complainant's allegation that the washing machine was having leakage since the time it was installed, if it was so, then the Complainant would not have waited for so many years when the machine was bought in 23-07-2008. If that was so then the very complaint is beyond limitation for the cause of action was allegedly in August 2008 and the complaint is filed in the year 2013 and the same has to be dismissed forthwith based on the averments of the complaint alone. If the Complainant was not satisfied with the Opposite Party's service they would not have entered into a AMC after the Warranty period of the machine. After 4 years of warranty the Complainant had entered into an AMC with them and the terms and conditions by which the same was covered was detailed in the agreement itself. As clearly made out in the terms clause 16 of the Terms & conditions of AMC it was clearly detailed that cabinet plastic and rubber material of the machine was not covered under AMC and also damaged due to rust etc was not covered. when Complainant had given a complaint and immediately their technicians had inspected the machine and he was informed that they would repair the machine but the Complainant wanted the cabinet and tub hose of the washing machine which is a plastic /Rubber material of the machine to be replaced free of cost, though it was informed that the same could not be replaced free of cost as it was not covered by AMC and also in case the damage in the machine is due to rust then the AMC would not apply. Hence their representatives had informed him that the said parts cannot be replaced for free.The said cost of  machine parts including tub hose and cabinet has to be borne at his cost, but he rushed to this court without any legal basis. The Complainant is seeking a remedy beyond the contract he has entered into without paying for the same and beyond the scope of AMC entered into with them and he cannot be heard to say that there was deficiency of service and seek replacement of materials and parts not covered in AMC and claim a relief and seek damages for issues beyond the contract. Without prejudice they are willing to repair the machine as per AMC, provided the Complainant pays for the said cabinet and Tub hose for the washing machine. The complaint that the machine supplied to the Complainant was faulty or had a manufacturing defect and further state the claim that their representatives has informed in internet or in person to the Complainant that the AMC also covers Plastic and rubber parts, were denied and the Complainant cannot be legally permitted to claim something contrary to the written terms and conditions which is legally inadmissible and in so far as the allegations of consumer deficiency is concerned it is false and self serving. The very complaint has been filed flippantly even without verifying the fact and with a sole motive of pulling wool over the eyes of the Hon'ble Forum with non-existent consumer defect and deny the allegations that they had engaged in unfair trading practice, had cheated the Complainant, when in fact it is the complaint which has resorted to such false and scandalous allegations against the Opposite Party to obtain a machine by hook or crook and the Complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The document marked by the Complainant in his typed set i.e., invoice and with terms and condition is the document for AMC and the contention by the Complainant that he has not received any document is clearly misleading and they and their representatives have been in continuous touch with the Complainant and have briefed him about the machine and the claim for parts replacement being outside the AMC and it was the Complainant who was failing to see reason and making unreasonable demands. The claim for damages or deficiency is legally and factually unacceptable and fanciful and the allegations that the Complainant's wife had undergone pain in neck, back and leg due to washing clothes is self serving made to canvass sympathy from the Hon'ble forum while the Complainant seeking remedy beyond the contract he had entered into with the Opposite Party.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6  were marked. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted its Written Version and Proof Affidavit and no document was marked on their side.

5.  The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even sufficient notice served on them and remained absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

It is clear from Ex.A.-1 that the subject washing machine was purchased in the year 2008 by the Complainant and the Contention of the Complainant was that there was water leakage in the subject washing machine from the first month of its purchase. Though a complaint was lodged and the same was attended by a technician, but the Complainant had not mentioned the date of service or the fault was attended by whom. Further the Complainant had lodged another complaint with the 1^st Opposite Party regarding the leakage of water only on 28.09.2012 i.e., after 4 years and as admitted by the Complainant the same was attended by the 2^nd Opposite Party through 3^rd Opposite Party and even thereafter the complaints given by the Complainant has been attended by the 2^nd Opposite Party, as admitted by the Complainant. The grievance of the Complainant was that though he had entered into an Annual Maintenance contract on 30.09.2012 with the 1^st Opposite Party through the 2^nd Opposite Party and he had not received the Annual Maintenance Documents from the 1^st Opposite Party and the Charges collected towards AMC was in excess of Rs.74/-, inspite of paid AMC by way of cheque, for which a receipt under Ex.A-2 was issued. Further he was charged for the spare parts that has been replaced. The Contention of the 1^st Opposite Party in this regard was that the terms and conditions of the Annual Maintenance Charges entered into with the Complainant, was printed overleaf of the cash receipt dated 30.09.2012, Ex.A-2 and it was clearly mentioned under Clause 16 of the terms and conditions that “ This Contract is comprehensive in nature and it includes labour and all components (not accessories) However the following components are excluded. 1. Cabinet 2. Aesthetic materials and 3. Rubber materials/Plastic Pipes. Further in the Note Column it was clearly mentioned that “Rust/Paint Peel off/damages due to rodents/pests are not covered under this contract”. Further contended that the Complainant wanted to replace Cabinet and Tub Hose, free of cost and the charges collected on Tub hose, being a plastic material which does not covered under the Annual Maintenance. The Complainant had not proved by producing any valid evidence to show that the subject washing machine supplied to him was a defective one and the allegations made against the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are not sustainable, as the same is not supported by any documentary evidence and the mail communications marked as Ex.A-3 does not contain any serious allegations against the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties. From the averments of the Complaint it is clear that the service of the subject washing machine was attended by the 2^nd Opposite Party whenever the complaint was registered by the Complainant.

On foregoing discussions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Opposite Parties had acted diligently in attending the service of the subject washing machine of the Complainant. Therefore, we are of considered view that the Opposite Parties had not committed any deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the Complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 answered.

 

 

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 22^nd of September 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	23.07.2008	Copy of Cash Bill
Ex.A2	30.09.2012	Copy of Cash receipt for AMC issued by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A3	13.01.2013	Copy of Complaint number:10163141 given by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A4	18.03.2013	Copy of Complaint number:10382315 given by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A5	26.03.2013	Copy of Cash receipt issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for spare part
Ex.A6	-	Copy of Screen shot of AMC charges published in the website of 1st Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT