IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Saturday,  the 30th   day of  December, 2017.

Filed on 22-06-2017

Present  

1.  Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)

2.  Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)

3.  Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in 

C.C.No.173/2017

between

Complainant:-        Opposite parties:-

Sri.Abhilash.A.P 1.  L.G.Electronics India Pvt.Ltd

Pulickalparambil      Electronics Manufacturer

Avalukkunnu.P.O     Banglore, Karnataka

Alappuzha    

2.  Pioneer Electroics

  27/184, Near Pazhaveedu Temple

     Pazhaveedu. P.O 

     Alappuzha- 688009                                                                                 

3.  Good morning Enterprises

     Head Office, CCSB Raod

     Alappuzha

O R D E R

SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)

           

The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-

The complainant had purchased a washing machine from the 3rd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 18,500/- on 17/12/2011.  The 3rd opposite party induced the complainant to purchase the said washing machine and assured that the said product has 10 years warranty.  The product became defective during the warranty period and entrusted to the 2nd opposite party many times for getting it repaired.  On 26/7/2016 the product became again defective but they have charged  an amount of Rs. 6792/- from the complainant, even though opposite party assured 10 years warranty for the product  . But  the defect persisted and complainant could not use the same.  The complainant requested the opposite party to repair the same free of cost buy  they demand charges for repairing the product. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint. 

2. Notice was served to the opposite parties 1 to 3. 1st and 2nd opposite party filed version, 3rd opposite party did not appear before the Forum and set exparte. 

 

3.  Version of the opposite party 1and 2 as follows:-

Complaint is not maintainable.  The opposite party has not assured 10 years warranty as alleged by the complainant.   The product has only 2 years warranty. After the said warranty period of 2 years the complainant repaired the product after giving service charges.  The complaint is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complainant. Hence the complaint may be dismissed. The complainant filed proof affidavit and produced 3 documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A3 series.

4.  Considering the allegation of the complainant this Forum as raised the following issues for consideration:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for? 

 

      5.  Issues 1 and 2:-  The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a washing machine manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 17/12/2011.  According to the complainant the product has 10 year warranty. During the warranty period the product became defective.  But the opposite party demanded repairing charges.  Hence the complaint is filed.  

  Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ext.A1series to A3 were marked. Ext.A1 series are the service details. Ext.A2 is the Retail invoice.  Ext.A3 is the warranty card.  The specific case of the complainant is that the product he purchased has 10 years warranty.  According to the opposite parties the product has only 2 years warranty and the complainant has done the services after the warranty period by making payment.  The complainant produced the original warranty card before the Forum and the same was marked as Ext.A3.  On going through Ext.A3, it is clearly stated (under clause 9) the warranty period is for 24 months.  Admittedly the complainant purchased the product on 17/12/2011 so the warranty expires on 17/12/2013.    Further more in Ext.A3 it is also stated that an additional warranty of 8 years its provided on all direct drive motors used in washing machine.  According to the complainant the machine became defective during the year 2016 and the opposite party charged repairing charges.  Ext.A3 shows that at that time the product is not under warranty .  From Ext.A1 series it can be seen the repairing were done for parts other the motors.  So that the additional 8 years warranty offered is not applicable to the parts that are replaced.  So we can’t held opposite party liable for any deficiency in service.  But if the existing complainant is with regard to the motor the opposite parties are liable to rectify the same under warranty.

In the result complainant is allowed partly .  The opposite parties are directed  to rectify the defects free of cost if the  defect of the washing machine is with regard to the direct drive motors used in the washing machine.  No order as to compensation and cost. 

Pronounced    in Open Forum on this the 30th day of   December 2017.

Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

            Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)

                        Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

Ext.A1Series  - Service Details   

Ext.A2 - Retail Invoice dtd. 17-12-2011 

ExtA3 - Warranty Card.

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  

 

-//True copy//-

                                                                                                               By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.

To

Complainant/Opposite party/SF

Typed by:Br/-

Compd.By: