IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 22nd day of November, 2021
Filed on 31.10.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.284/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Vinod.V.B, 1. IFB Industries Ltd
Veliyil, 2, Plot No. IND-5 Sector-1
Vadackal.P.O, East Kolkatta, Kolkkatta
Alappuzha -688003 India - 700107
(Party in person) 2. The Manager
IFB, SRJ Case, Unni Building
Avalukkunnu.P.O,
Alappuzha-688006
(Party in person)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
Complainant had purchased IFB washing machine from Police Canteen, Alappuzha for Rs.26,000/- on 1/12/2015. The said product was offered a warranty for 4 years. There occurred a defect to the washing machine within the warranty period and on 2/10/2019 the complainant registered complaint through Toll Free number of the company. But the technicians inspected the defect only on 22/10/2019 and told to be replaced the defected parts of the washing machine ie, drum and bearing. Upon verify the repairing it was found the complainant that the drum replaced with old parts and thus the opposite party cheated the complainant.
Thereafter the complainant had demanded several times to replace the old drum. But opposite party not heeded his request though they had given several dates for replacing the old drum with new one. These occasions the complainant had sustained financial loss waiting for the technician of the opposite party. Hence filed this complaint for getting a new washing machine from the opposite party and compensation for Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5000/- as cost.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly filed version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Complaint regarding purchase of washing machine its price and the period of warranty averred admitted by the opposite parties. Lodging of service requirement in toll free number on 2/10/2019 and deputing the service engineer on 22/10/2019 are admitted. Whereas the technicians informed the complainant that the washing machine is repaired with new drum and bearing is misleading, false and hence denied. On receipt of the consumer service requirement on 2.10.2019, the next day Mr. Nidihin.N, the technician inspected the washing machine and found that the drum and its bearing need replacement. Due to non availability of the new drum the service technician requested the complainant for some time for replacing the drum. Whereas the complainant citing personal needs asserted that he wants the washing machine to be serviced at the earliest. At that point of time Mr.Nidhin.N the service technician informed the complainant that they are having refurbished drum and the machine can be serviced with this refurbished drum for the time being and when the new drum arrives the same can be replaced. Accordingly on 22/10/ 2019 Mr. Nidhin.N serviced the complainant’s washing machine with the refurbished drum and new bearing with the full knowledge, consent and at the insistence of the complainant.
The averments that complainant was waiting many days at home for replacement of the old drum as promised and he could not go for daily wages work and he has suffered loss of income are false and are denied. It is submitted that the second opposite party has received the ordered new drum, Part No. UF321MXDRM021 for replacement on 31/10/219. Accordingly the same was taken to the residence of the complainant on 31/10/2019 and the complainant did not allow Mr. Nidhin.N the service technician to attend the washing machine for replacing the refurbished drum fixed with the new one. Accordingly the job card No.1003968024 was cancelled on 31/10/2019. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite parties.
3. On the basis of above pleadings the points arose for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the disputed washing machine as prayed in the complaint?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation Rs.15,000 from the opposite parties.
4. Point No.1 and 2:-
Complainant’s case is that he had purchased IFB washing machine on 1/12/2015 and it was defective on 2/10/2019. Thereafter registered a complaint to opposite parties. Admittedly the complainant’s defective washing machine inspected by technician of opposite party and replaced its drum with an old one on 22/10/2019. On realizing it the complainant wants its replacement with new drum. But opposite parties did not respond. Hence this complaint. Opposite party in their version admitted the allegation of replacement of drum with old one. Further averred that they were ready and willing to replace the old one with new drum but the complainant did not allowed.
On the day the case was posted for adducing evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit and produced 1 document, it got marked as Ext.A1. Though the opposite parties were filed a detailed version the opposite parties or their counsel did not come before this Commission to cross examine the complainant when he mounted in the box. Moreover it is pertinent to note that in the version the opposite parties admitted the main allegation of the complainants ie, the opposite parties technician had replaced the drum with an old one. But the contention that the service technician, Mr. Nidhin.N came to the residence of the complainant to replace the drum with new one on 31/10/2019 was not brought in to evidence to convince this Commission.
Accordingly at this point we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. Further, admittedly the defective part of the washing machine was replaced with old one. But knowing the fact that the defect occurred at the brim of the warranty period we could not order replacement by a new product. On the other hand the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the old drum with a new one in the disputed washing machine. Considering the facts and circumstances, ie, the acts of the opposite parties which leads to this litigation and the complainant was running pillar to post for redressal of his grievance, we allow compensation and it is limited to Rs.5000/- from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly and severally.
5. Point No.3:-
The complaint stands allowed in part.
A) The opposite parties are directed to replace the old drum fitted in the disputed washing machine with new drum.
B) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.
C) Complainant is allowed to realize and amount of Rs.2000/- as cost from the opposite parties.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 22nd day of November, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Warranty Card
Evidence of the opposite parties:-NIL
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
