Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.
One Mamata Manjari Nayak has filed the present complaint U/s. 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the opp.parties for some reliefs as mentioned in the complaint petition.
2. The case of the complainant is that she has purchased one washing machine from opp.party No.1 & 2 through opp.party No.3 on 05.09.2011 on payment of Rs.25,490.00. Annexure-1 is the photo copy of the Retail Invoice. The opp.party No.1 is the manufacturer of the washing machine. The opp.parties had given 4 years warranty on the machine. The copy of the warranty card is Annexure-2. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.6018.00 to opp.party No.3 for Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) of the washing machine on 14.12.2017 for a period of 2years. Annexure-3 is the photo copy of the said receipt. The photo copy of the payment detail showing payment of Rs.5416.20 only in the official website of opp.parties’ company is Annexure-4. As per the payment detail, the period of AMC is from 26.12.2017 to 25.12.2019. The opp.parties did not supply the AMC document to the complainant inspite of her repeated request. Opp.party No.3 illegally charged an amount of Rs.601.80 excess from the complainant. The washing machine of the complainant went out of order on 04.05.2018, for which the complainant lodged her complaint with opp.party No.3. The engineer of opp.party No.3 inspected the machine and reported it dead. He advised for replacement of inner drum. Annexure- 5 is the photo copy of the job card dtd.08.05.2018. Inspite of request made by the complainant the opp.parties did not repair the machine nor supplied the copy of AMC document to the complainant, although more than 4 months has been elapsed after receiving the payment for AMC. Annexure-6 is the photo copy of the job card dtd.08.05.2018. Since then the complainant is running to opp.party No.3 for necessary maintenance but the opp.party No.3 disclosed that the inner drum of the washing machine is not available with the company and the company is not supplying the same for replacement. As the washing machine of the complainant went out of order, she along with her family is facing hardship to wash their cloth. The complainant is spending Rs.9,000.00 per month for washing the cloth of her family. She also suffered from cold, joint pain due to cleaning of the cloth regularly by her hand. The complainant and all his family members are subjected to harassment and mental agony due to non-maintenance of the washing machine by the opp.parties. She also suffered from cold, joint pain due to cleaning of the cloth regular by the opp.parties. Hence the complaint.
3. Notices were issued to all the opp.parties through Regd. post with A.D on 15.12.2018. In pursuance of such notice opp.party No.2 & 3 entered their appearance through their authorised person & advocate but only opp.party No.3 filed his written version. opp.party No.1 has been set exparte.
4 The case of the opp.party No.3 is that the contents of paragraph-1 & 3 of the complaint petition are admitted by opp.party No.3. AMC was issued in favour of the complainant but there was no excess charge realised from the complainant. The bank charges on the amount for AMC has been charged by the opp.party No. 3. The opp.party No.3 could not repair the machine purchased by the complainant due to non-availability of the part of the particular model of washing machine purchased by the complainant. The opp.party No.3 has not aware the documents relating to AMC. It is a matter in between the complainant and the opp.party No.1. The company usually sent the AMC paper to the customers directly. The opp.party No.3 could not repair the washing machine produced before him by the complainant due to non-availability of the inner drum of the machine. The relief claimed by the complainant is illegal and hypothetical. She is not entitled for the relief claimed. The opp.party No.3 is a mere service centre of washing machine of the company with limited liabilities. The opp.party No.1 is the manufacturer , who may be liable under warranty. The opp.party No.1 is also liable to repair the machine through authorised repairing centre. The complainant has no direct relationship with the opp.party No.1. The complainant has paid AMC amount to the complainant through opp.party No.3. The complainant is not entitled for any relief.
5. The complaint petition filed by the complainant is supported with affidavit. Admittedly the complainant has purchased a washing machine from opp.party No.1 & 2 through opp.party No.3 on 05.09.2011 . Annexure-1 is the photo copy of the Retail Invoice which shows that the complainant has purchased the washing machine from the company of the opp.party No.1 & 2 on payment of Rs.25,490.00. The complainant has filed the photo copy of the warranty card . Although in his complaint petition at paragraph-2 the complainant has mentioned that the warranty period was 4 years, there is no such endorsement on the warranty report issued to the complainant vide Annexure-2. However, Annexure- 3,5 & 6 are the documents issued by the opp.party No.1 to the complainant when she produced the washing machine for necessary repairing. On perusal of those documents it is clear that an amount of Rs.6018.00 was received from the complainant by opp.party No.3 on 14.12.2017, By said document the AMC was covered for 2 years. From Annexure-5 & 6 it appears that the complainant has produced her washing machine before opp.party No.3 on 05.05.2018 and 08.05.2018 for necessary repairing. From Annexure- 3,5 & 6 it clear that the inner drum of the washing machine is dead, which could not be repaired due to non-receipt of the necessary part i.e inner drum from the company i.e opp.party No.1 & 2. From the show cause of the opp.party No.3 it is clear that although the complainant received the AMC amount from the complainant, within the AMC period he could not able to provide necessary service. The plea of the complainant regarding deficiency in service by opp.party No.1 & 2 is supported by the show cause filed by the opp.party No.3. Inspite of notice opp.party No.1 & 2 have not filed their written statement, although opp.party No.2 appeared but opp.party No.1 has been set exparte. Neither opp.party No.1 nor opp.party No.2 choose to lead the evidence.
So from the materials on record it is apparent that the complainant has purchased the washing machine from opp.party No.1 & 2 and although they received the AMC charges from the complainant did not provide necessary service to the complainant within the AMC period. There is gross deficiency in service by opp.party No.1 & 2, for which the complainant and his family members were subjected to harassment and mental agony. The complainant has spent some amount every month for washing of the dirty cloth of his family members. She also suffered from cold and joint pains. The allegation made by the complainant in his complaint petition goes unchallenged by the opp.party No.1 & 2. Hence the complainant is entitled for return of AMC amount along with compensation.
6. Hence order :-
: O R D E R :
The case be and the same is allowed in part, exparte against opp.party No.1 and on contest against opp.partyNo.2 & 3. The opp.partyNo.1 & 2 are directed to return the amount of Rs.6,018.00 (Rupees Six Thousand Eighteen) only to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from 14.12.2017 till payment is made. The opp.party No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand ) only towards harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) towards litigation cost to the complainant. The opp.partyNo.1 & 2 are directed to pay the order amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing pay an interest @ 12% per annum till payment is made to the complainant.
