Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/16/569

SUDHEENDRAN M.G - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB INDUSTRIES LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
ERNAKULAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/569
 
1. SUDHEENDRAN M.G
MULAYAMKOTTU HOUSE, KAIPATTOOR P.O.,PIN-682313
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. IFB INDUSTRIES LTD.,
PLOT NO. IND-5, SECTOR-1, EAST KOLKATTA TOWNSHIP, KOLKATTA-700078
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. CHERIAN .K. KURIAKOSE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SHEEN JOSE MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. V.K BEENAKUMARI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 20 Feb 2017
Final Order / Judgement

 

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 20th day of February 2017

Filed on : 07-10-2016

 

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

 

CC.No.569/2016

Between

Sudheendran M.G. : Complainant

Mulayamkottu house, (party-in-person)

Kaippattoor P.O.,

Pin – 682 313.

And

 

1. IFB Industries Ltd., : Opposite parties

Plot No. IND-5, Sector-1, (absent)

East Kolkata Township,

Kolkata-700 078,

rep. by its Managing Director.

 

2. Manager, IFB Customer Care,

IDEAL Group, Bhala Complex,

Room No. 375G, 375H,

Hill Palace P.O.,

Thripunithaura.

 

O R D E R

 

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant's case

2. The complainant purchased an IFB Elena DX Front loading washing machine manufactured by the 1st opposite party, from M/s. Fridge House, Retail Pvt. Ltd. on 28-11-2011 on payment of Rs. 16,900/-. The machine was installed in the complainant's house on 05-12-2011. In the month of November 2015, the machine became faulty and on 26-11-2015 the complainant had complained to the customer service centre (2nd opposite party) and no action has been taken by them. On 08-12-2015 and 22-12-2015 the complainant made complaints through mail to the opposite party. Despite the opposite party received the mail and had sent a reply regretting the delay and convenience caused, till the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 07-10-2016 the machine was not attended to by the concerned officers of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

    1. Notices were issued to the opposites parties and they received the same. However, they did not appear to contest the matter and hence the opposite parties were set exparte.

    2. When the matter came up for evidence of the complainant the complainant filed a proof affidavit and Exbt. A1 to A6 documents were marked. Exbt. A1 is the invoice No. SK09512 dated 28-11-2011 issued by M/s. Fridge house, retail Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of the Washing machine concerned in this case, for an amount of Rs. 16,900/-. Exbt. A2 report would go to show that the installation of the washing machine was done on 05-12-2011. Exbt. A3 dated 03-12-2015 is the purchase bill for a product called 'descad', using for washing and clearing the internal parts of the machine. On 14-12-2015 the 1st opposite party is seen to have issued a letter by e-mail assuring that the service personnel will revert the complaints shortly. Again on 23-12-2015, in reply to the G-mail communication given by the complainant to the opposite party, the opposite party seen to have issued Exbt. A5 e-mail communication stating that the complainant's complaint was already forwarded to the branch office. The advocate notice is Exbt. A6 is seen to have been issued only on 6th February 2016 and it is not seen replied by the opposite parties

    3. The complainant did not produce any document to prove that the product purchased by him in the year 2011 had a warranty until 2015, when the machine had shown faulty performance by the time. The complainant had raised his grievance, a period of 4 years have been elapsed from the date of purchase. The main grievance of the complainant is that there was delay in attending his complaints, in getting the defective washing machine repaired. The complainant had not produced any documents on warranty. We find that the complainant has not proved the coverage of the machine with a warranty at the time of the machine having become faulty. The documents produced by the complainants has been marked as Exbts. A1 to A6 will not prove the case of the complainant with regard to the deficiency of service as alleged. We therefore find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th day of February 2017

 

 

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

 

 

Sheen Jose, Member.

 

 

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Complainants Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 28-11-2011

A2 : Copy of customer copy

A3 : Copy of bill dt. 03-12-2015

A4 : Copy of e-mail dt. 14-12-2015

A5 : Copy of letter dt. 23-12-2015

A6 : Copy of letter dt. 06-12-2016

Opposite party's Exhibits: : Nil

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. CHERIAN .K. KURIAKOSE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHEEN JOSE]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. V.K BEENAKUMARI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.