IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C. 65/2014 (Filed on 09.06.2014)
Between:
Samuel Thomas, aged 70,
Vadakkethayyil Veedu,
Mylapra Muri,
Konni Taluk,
Pathanamthitta. …. Complainant.
And:
1. L.G.Electronics Pvt.Ltd,
40/1270,Vasudeva Buildings,
T.D.Road,Ernakulam,
Cochin.
2. L.G. Service Center,
Thykkottathil Buildings,
No.396,Opp. Catholicate College,
Makkamkunnu P.O.,
Pathanamthitta -689 645.
3. Q.R.S. Electronics &
Home Appliances,
Opp. Collectorate,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645. …. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased an L.G. Washing machine (Model No.WD-10160 TP) TROMM-7kg with front loading in the year 2006 for Rs.32,000/- from the 3rd opposite party. The said washing machine became defective during January 2014 and it was intimated to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Technicians of the opposite parties came and checked the washing machine and told that the complaint seen is not covered under warranty and the company stopped the manufacturing of this machine and hence spare parts are also not available and they left. According to the complainant it is the duty of the opposite parties to repair the complaint as he cannot get it repaired by others. Complainant is also prepared to pay the repairing cost. So the complainant asked to repair the washing machine at his cost. But opposite parties are not prepared to repair the machine. Because of the above said act of the opposite parties, the complainant had sustained total loss of Rs.72,000/- under various heads. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs.72,000/- from the opposite parties.
3. In this case, opposite parties are exparte.
4. On the basis of the allegation of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether the complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
6. The Point :- The complainant’s allegation is that the washing machine purchased from the 3rd opposite party became defective. The complaints were properly intimated to the opposite parties. But so far they have not rectified the defects of the washing machine by saying that spare parts are not available as the company stopped its manufacturing. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency of service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1. In the deposition of PW1 he had stated that the technician of the opposite parties had took the cash bill, and warranty card but not return back. So PW1 could not produce the documents before the Forum. The complainant’s allegation is that the washing machine became defective and the defect was not rectified by the opposite parties in spite of the complainant’s request for rectifying the defect. Since opposite parties are exparte we find no reason to disbelieve the complainant and hence the case stands proved as unchallenged. So we find that the act of opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is allowable.
8. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to rectify the defects of the complaints of the washing machine free of cost within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order and the 3rd opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five hundred only) and cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant, failing which the complainant is allowed to repair the machine through any other agency and in that event the complainant is allowed to realize the repairing cost from 1st and 2nd opposite parties and cost and compensation ordered herein above from 3rd opposite party with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 6th day of November, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Sheela Jacob,
(Member – 1)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Samuel Thomas
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Samuel Thomas, Vadakkethayyil Veedu,
Mylapra Muri, Konni Taluk,
Pathanamthitta.
(2) L.G.Electronics Pvt.Ltd, 40/1270,Vasudeva
Buildings, T.D.Road,Ernakulam, Cochin.
(3) L.G. Service Center, Thykkottathil Buildings,
No.396,Opp. Catholicate College,
Makkamkunnu P.O., Pathanamthitta -689 645.
(4) Q.R.S. Electronics & Home Appliances,
Opp. Collectorate, Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
(5) The Stock File.
