DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2023

Present   :   Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

              :   Smt.Vidya A., Member           

              :   Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                    

   Date of Filing: 23/05/2022

CC/94/2022

   Tomy Raphel

   Puthusseipady House,

   Chittur (Near THS)

   Palakkad -678 101

   (By Adv. G. Jayachandran)                           -          Complainant   

V/s

 1.      Jamal Sales Corporation,

   Represented by its Authorized signatory

   Court Road, Palakkad. 678 001

 2.        UNIQPLUS

    Authorised service centre,

    Represented by its Manager,

    No. 30/253,1^st Floor, West Yakkara,

    Chungam junction,

    Palakkad

  3.       Bosch Household appliances Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.

              Represented by its Managing director

              Arena House, 2^nd Floor, Main Building,

              Plot No. 103, Road No. 12, MIDC, Andheri (E)

              Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 093

              (All opposite parties -Ex-parte)                     -        Opposite parties

O R D E R

          By Smt. Vidya A., Member

1.       Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

The complainant  purchased a washing machine Model  BOSCH W/M WAB 160601/N/30 and serial no. 9707102827 from the 1^st opposite party on 19.09.2017 for an amount of  Rs. 24800/- The 1^st opposite party is the authorised dealer of the product, 2^nd opposite party is the authorised service centre and 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer. The complainant purchased the said model on the assurance given by the staff of the 1^st opposite party that this model is fast moving and it has 10 years warranty.  They also assured good after sale service.

         On 05.03.2022, when the complainant tried to operate the washing machine, it did not turn on.  He contacted the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party through phone and they promised to send service technician. On 09.03.22, 2^nd opposite party’s technician came and checked the washing machine and informed that the drum is not working.  He told that since the product is under warranty, they will replace the drum costing around Rs. 13,500/- free of cost. (Complainant paid Rs. 800/- as service charges) Later on he was informed that the drum is out of stock and it will take same more time to arrange it.

           The complainant got mail from the 3^rd opposite party stating that there is unforeseen delay in getting the spare parts due to Covid 19 Pandemic and they offered a new washing machine bearing Model No. W.LJ 2016 IN of 6 kg at an approximate cost of the repair of the part and asked to transfer an amount of Rs. 18,500/- for the same. They informed that the cost of the new washing machine is Rs. 32,000/- and the complainant had to pay only Rs. 18,500/- minimizing the cost of the drum.

         Since the complainant could not afford the new machine at such higher rate, he contacted  the opposite parties and asked to repair the same at their cost or replace the machine with a new one of the same series or to reimburse Rs. 13,500/-  being the cost of the drum.  But the complainant got a reply turning down his request.  He approached the opposite parties for solving the issue, but all in vain.

          The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are bound to repair the washing machine at their cost.  But they did not rectify the product and compelled the complainant to purchase their product at higher rate. The conduct of opposite parties amount to Deficiency in service and Unfair Trade practice.

            So this complaint is filed to direct 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to rectify the complaint of the washing machine and direct all opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for their Deficiency in service Rs. 5000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and such other reliefs as the Commission finds fit and proper grant. 

2.      Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Even after the receipt of notices, the opposite parties did not appear before the Commission.  So they were set ex-parte.

3.       Points arising for consideration are

1. Whether there is any Deficiency in service/Unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
3. Reliefs if any, as cost and compensation.

4.     Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and Exhibit A1 to A4

     (A4 series of 5 communications) marked.  Evidence closed and heard the complainant and taken for orders.  Then 3^rd opposite party advanced the matter and submitted that there is a chance for settlement.  Later they filed IA 16/22 to set aside the ex-parte order passed against them and it was dismissed as the Commission has no authority to set aside the ex-parte order.

5.       Point No: 1

      We have perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant.  Exhibit A1 is the Tax Invoice dated 19.09.2017 showing the purchase of BOSCH W/M WAB 16060 1N for an amount of Rs. 24,800/- Exhibit A2 is the warranty card (showing warranty of 2 years for washing machine and Washer Dryer and 10 years - only on motor).

             Complainant’s contention is that on 05.03.2022 when he tried to open the washing machine, it did not turn on. So he contacted the 3^rd and 2^nd opposite party for repair.  On 09.03.2022, one technician of the 2^nd opposite party checked the washing machine and informed that the drum is not working and since the product is under warranty they will replace it free of cost.

6.      Later on, the officials of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties informed him that the drum is out of stock and it will take some more time to arrange. As an alternative, they suggested that a new model washing machine will be provided at the minimized cost of the drum.

7.     On 09.03.2022, the complainant got mail from the 3^rd opposite party stating the offer of new washing machine bearing Model WLJ 2016 of 6K.g capacity at an approximate cost of repair of the product and asked to transfer an amount of Rs. 18,500/- minimizing the cost of the drum.

8.    The complainant produced the e-mail communications between them which is marked as Exhibit A4 (series)

           The e-mail communication send by the officials of 3^rd opposite party on 09.03.2022 states that based on the complainant’s request and subsequent visit of their technician, they found that drum assembly of the Machine was faulty. They further state that there is an unforeseen delay in procuring spare parts and as a gesture of goodwill; they offered a new washing machine at the approximate cost of current repair.

9.       According to the complainant, he did not accept their offer as he could not afford the new machine at such higher rate and requested the opposite parties to cure the defect in the machine.

10.     Being the manufacturer, the 3^rd opposite party is bound to provide the spare parts of their product within a reasonable period.  The delay in supplying the spare parts of the product is Deficiency in service on their part. Instead of supplying the spare parts needed for curing the defects in the complainant’s washing machine, they made a new offer.  3^rd opposite party repeated their offer through mails send to the complainant.

           This is an unfair trade practice on the part of 3^rd opposite party. 

11.     Since there was a delay in curing the defect in the washing machine by repairing the defective part and it is due to the shortage of that part, the 3^rd opposite party manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant. The first opposite party dealer is also liable for the sale of the product knowingly that the spare parts are not available if any defect occurs in the machine.

      So we direct

1. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to cure the defect in the washing machine by replacing the defective part free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant or in the alternative to pay Rs.13,500/- being its cost.  
2. We further direct the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for their Unfair Trade Practice and Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony, Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

               The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 17^th day of January, 2023.

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                    President

                                                          Sd/-

                                                      Vidya A

                              Member   

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                    Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant

Ext. A1: Tax invoice issued the first opposite party dated 19.09.2017.

Ext. A2: Warranty card.

Ext. A3: Cash receipt for the service charge issued by 2^nd opposite party 
              dated 09.03.2022.

Ext. A4(series): printout of e-mail communications between the

       complainant and 3^rd  Opposite party.              

Documents marked from the side of Opposite party :  Nil

Witness examined -     Nil

Cost – 5,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.