BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 27^th DAY OF MARCH 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct them to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.16,607/- with interest and litigation cost, alleging deficiency of service.

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

That the complainant had purchased one IFB washing machine, German Model in the year 2000 for a sum of Rs.12,000/-.  That the complainant had taken services of various franchisees of OP-1 for annual maintenance contract (AMC) for a period of two years from 07.01.2014 to 06.01.2016 with OP-1 as the principal by paying a sum of Rs.4,157/- under a valid receipt dated 07.01.2014.  That as per the said AMC, OPs are liable to attend to any of the complaints, regarding the said washing machine during the said period of two years.  That OP-2 is an authorized service franchisee for IFB Industries Ltd., Mahadevpura, Bangalore and they undertook to render the services promised as per the terms of the AMC and OP-2 also issued another receipt dated 07.01.2014 for Rs.1,450/-.  That in the month of March 2014, the complainant found that there was some technical failure in the washing machine and it was not running properly.  Therefore on or about 17.03.2014 he contacted OP-2 and complained regarding the problem and sought its repair.  That an executive of OP-2 promised to inspect the machine on the same day itself, but did not turn up.

Subsequently the complainant also called OP-1 who also promised to look into the matter.  However, until 25.03.2014 inspite of repeated reminders through telephone calls neither OP-1 nor OP-2 responded to the said grievance of complainant.  That on 04.03.2014 when complainant telephoned to OP-2, executive of OP-2 enquired about the defects and problem and registered a complaint No.12508039 and promised to send a technician immediately after repairs.  But no technician was sent to the address of complainant for repairs till date.  That the conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency of service.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 03.05.2014 calling upon OPs to refund him a sum of Rs.8,607/-, the amount paid towards AMC and for inconvenience caused.  That despite service of notice, OPs failed to respond.  Therefore, the complainant is compelled to approach the Forum claiming a sum of Rs.13,605/- being the loss incurred by him due to the inaction and deficiency of service by the OPs and for refund of Rs.5,607/- paid towards AMC, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony suffered, Rs.1,000/- towards cost of legal notice and sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP-1 appeared through his advocate and filed its version contending in brief, as under:

That it is true that, complainant has purchased a IFB washing machine in the year 2000.  That it is true that, the complainant has taken an annual maintenance contract from OP-2 franchisee and the said AMC subject to replacement of parts is within the discretion of IFB Industries as per the terms and conditions of the AMC.  That when the complainant lodged a complaint with OP-2, a technician of OP-2 went to inspect the machine of the complainant at which time, he found the house was locked and therefore he was to return without being able to attend to the problem.  That later when the technicians of OP-2 went to attend the complaint, the complainant has abused the technician and sent him back abusing him that he had not come and repaired the machine early, hence, it is not fair on the part of complainant to blame OP-1 now.  That the allegations of complainant that, he sent more than 10 reminders to OP until 25.03.2014 are all false.  That OPs never refused or neglected to attend to the complaint raised by the complainant.  OP-1 is still ready and willing to repair the washing machine if the complainant permits.  That the complainant is not entitled to a sum of Rs.16,600/- as prayed for in the complaint.  That the complaint is false and frivolous and is devoid of any merits. 

For the above, amongst other reasons, OP-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Despite service of notice, OP-2 failed to appear and contest the complaint and therefore was placed ex-parte.

5. On the rival contention of both parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. The complainant as well as OP-1 tendered their evidence by way of affidavit, reiterating the respective pleadings.  The complainant has produced documents in support of his case.  Written arguments have been filed.  We have also heard oral arguments.

7. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

8. It is not in dispute that, the complainant had purchased one IFB washing machine, German model in the year 2000.  After expiry of the warranty period the complainant has entered into an annual maintenance contract with OP-1 by paying a sum of Rs.4,157/- on 07.01.2014 and the same is for a period of two years from 07.01.2014 to 06.01.2016 which is also not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that, subsequently, OP-2 an authorized service franchisee for IFB Industries Ltd., undertook to render the services and issued another receipt bearing No.2203 dated 07.01.2014 for Rs.1,450/- and the same was paid by complainant to OP-2 in cash.  The complainant has produced documentary evidence in this regard which are not in dispute.

9. As could be seen from the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the legal notice issued by him when the complainant encountered certain technical defects in the washing machine, he complained the same to OP-2 who is the franchisee of OP-1 and requested him to get the same rectified.  Despite having promised that a mechanic will be sent to attend to the said repairs, none turn up.  As could be made out from the material placed on record the complainant thereafter has repeatedly communicated to both OP-2 as well as OP-1 requesting them to send their mechanics for the early repair of the washing machine.  It appears to us that, the OPs have not responded to the repeated requests and reminders by the complainant which forced the complainant to got issue a legal notice.  Despite service of legal notice, none of the OPs have responded and taken steps to get the machine repaired in terms of the AMC entered into between the complainant and OPs.  This conduct of OPs certainly amounts to grave deficiency of service.

10. The allegations of OP-1 is that when one of the mechanic went to the house of the complainant, he found the house locked and therefore could not attend to the repairs.  No date, month or time of the said visit is stated in the version.  Therefore, we cannot believe that any mechanic visited the house of the complainant and found the door locked.  There is also no credible material on record to believe the allegations of OP-1 that after few days when one mechanic went to the house of the complainant, complainant did not permit to attend to the repairs and abused him and sent him away.  It appears to us that, this defence set out by OP-1 is only to overcome the deficiency of service on their part.  OP-2 who is directly responsible for providing service to complainant in terms of AMC, has neither appeared nor contested the complaint from which an inference can be drawn that, he admit the deficiency as alleged against them.  Since OPs have failed to act in terms of AMC not only they are liable to refund the amount received towards AMC for a period of two years and also they shall have to be directed to compensate the complainant for having caused great inconvenience and mental agony.  The complainant has successfully proved the deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

11. It is not in dispute that, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.4,157/- to OP-1 and sum of Rs.1,450/- to OP-2 towards annual maintenance contract for the period between 07.01.2014 to 06.01.2016 OPs are liable to refund the said amount having failed to act in terms of AMC.  As already stated above due to the deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant has been put to hardship, inconvenience and mental agony for which OPs have to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Accordingly point No.2 is answered.

12. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

13. In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:  

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OPs are directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,607/- (Five Thousand Six Hundred Seven Rupees only) to the complainant received towards annual maintenance charges.  Further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,000/-, together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

OPs shall comply the order within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

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 27^th day of March 2017)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 06.02.2015.

           Sri.M.Srinivas Setty.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party-1 dated 12.05.2015.

1. Sri.Santosh.  

Document produced by the Opposite parties – Nil.

MEMBER                            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

Vln*