BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 267/2015 Filed on 17.06.2015

ORDER DATED: 03.11.2017

Complainant:

Balakrishnan Unnithan, S/o Prabhakaran Unnithan, Vaikundam, GRA E 225/1, Kurunikkadu, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram-695013.

                             (By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)                                     

Opposite parties:

1. IFB Industries Ltd., Home Appliances Division, L1, Verna Electronic City, Verna, Salcete, Goa-403 722 represented by its General Manager.

2. Ideal Home Appliances, Kaithamukku Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023 represented by its Manager.

3. Karthiks-India, IFB Authorized Service Centre, Valsala Bhavan, T.C 16/521, Kochar Road, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014 represented by its Manager.

This case having been heard on 31.08.2017, the Forum on 03.11.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Gist of the complainant’s case is that complainant had purchased from the 2^nd opposite party on 28^th October 2011, for his domestic use, a washing machine model Senorita SX having capacity of 6 KG manufactured by 1^st opposite party.  The cost paid by the complainant was Rs. 24,750/-.  The product was provided with a warranty for a period of four years by the 1^st opposite party.  To the dismay of the complainant, within few weeks from the date of purchase, the board of the product failed to function, which obviously was due to manufacturing defects.  The said defect was cured after two weeks from the date of reporting of the defect.  In November 2014 the product again stopped functioning.  The complainant had registered a complaint with the 1^st opposite party on 25.11.2014 as Complaint No. 11949911.  Without closing the first complaint, the 1^st opposite party had registered a new complaint No. 1100165304 dated 09.03.2015.   The service personnel from the 3^rd opposite party inspected the said product after three days of registration of the complaint and informed the complainant that the motor of the product had been burnt.  The service personnel of the 3^rd opposite party after twenty days of his first visit inspected the product and tried to cure the defect but in vain. The service personnel from the 3^rd opposite party, after opening the product, left the same without remitting the product leaving parts of the product scattered all over the floor of the complainant’s house.  The service personnel sent by the 3^rd opposite party were unable to identify the defect of the product.  Despite many telephonic and e-mail communications with the opposite parties, nothing has been done to cure the defects of the product.  The complainant had also lodged a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party.  The product cannot be used and has not been used from 25.11.2014.  The service personnel from the 3^rd opposite party had on 12.03.2015 collected the product from the house of the complainant and had issued an acknowledgement dated 04.03.2015.  The said product has neither been repaired nor returned to the complainant.  Even after the lapse of more than two months nothing has been communicated to the complainant regarding the status of the product.  The complainant lost the privilege of warranty period from 25.11.2014.  The opposite parties were not in the least bothered about the consumer who had so purchased the product and who had been repeatedly requesting them to make the product fit for the use for which it was purchased.  The complainant had, by emails and letters, expressed his disgust with the manner in which the opposite parties have dealt with the matter and in so many words demanded replacement of the said product by a brand new washing machine or to refund the full cost including all expenses incurred by him and to compensate him for the damages sustained.  The complainant aggrieved by the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the opposite parties issued a legal notice dated 04.05.2015 demanding removal of deficiency in service.  The opposite parties in spite of the receipt of the said notice, did not furnish any reply thereto.  Hence complainant approached this Forum for redressal. 

Notice sent to opposite parties.  Opposite parties appeared in person, but not filed version.    

Issues:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 marked.  The product is with the opposite party.  Since there is no contra evidence to look into, we have no other go but to believe the version of the complainant.  Since the product is with the opposite party no question of expert evidence is considered.  We are of the opinion that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.  Hence opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the product with a brand new IFB washing machine model Senorita SX having capacity of 6 KG.  If the product is out of production opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 24,750/-, the value of the product as alternative relief.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the product with a brand new IFB washing machine model Senorita SX having capacity of 6 KG.  If the product is out of production opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 24,750/-, the value of the product as alternative relief.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 34,750/- (Rs. 24,750/- + Rs. 10,000/-) carries interest @ 6% per annum from the date of default till realization. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 3^rd day of November 2017.    

         Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 267/2015

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Billing slip

P2     - Receipt dated 31.10.2011

P3     - Copy of mail dated 19.12.2014

P4     - Copy of mail dated 27.12.2014

P5     - Acknowledgement dated 04.02.2015

P6     - Copy of advocate notice dated 04.05.2015

P7(series)- Acknowledgement cards ( 3 Nos.)

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb