IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2013.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)

C.C.No. 46/2013 (Filed on 27.03.2013)

Between:

N. Ajithkumar,

Aiswarya,

Vengal,

Alamthuruthi.P.O.,

Thiruvalla – 13.

(By Adv. K.P. Chandrasekhara Pillai)                       ….    Complainant

And:

1.   L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar,

            Surajpur, Kasna Road,

            Greater Noida – 201306, (U.P).

(By Adv. T. Harikrishnan)

        2. L.G. Service Centre,

            Manjadi. P.O.,

            Thiruvalla.

3.   Attinkara Electronics Division,

   Kurisukavala, Thiruvalla.                    ….   Opposite parties

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                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 from the 3^rd opposite party on 17.05.2011 having two years warranty from the date of purchase.  During January 2013, the said washing machine became non-working and it is intimated to the 3^rd opposite party.  As per the direction of the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant had registered his complaint with the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party manufacturer.  A technician of 2^nd opposite party came and repaired the washing machine twice.  But thereafter also it became non-working.  So the complainant registered his complaint with Kozhikode branch and Ernakulam branch of the 1^st opposite party.  After that the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the complaint of the washing machine is not covered by warranty and the complaint can be rectified on payment of Rs. 6,000/-.  Their intimation is against the warranty conditions and it is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for an order either directing the opposite parties to replace the defective washing machine or for paying an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost.

                3. In this case, 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed versions with the following main contentions: 1^st opposite party admitted the sale of the washing machine and its warranty.  When the complainant was reported by the complainant, the service officials of the 1^st opposite party inspected the washing machine and found that the PCB connected to the said washing machine was damaged by rats.  As the warranty provided by the manufacturer does not covered such damages, the service officials collected Rs. 6,460/- for the replacement of the components without collecting any service charges as the complaint is occurred during the warranty period.  All possible precautions to prevent such damages being caused to the machine is provided in the products.  1^st opposite party has already provided free servicing and had collected only the cost of the replaced components.  Thus according to the 1^st opposite party, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of the 1^st opposite party.  With the above contentions, 1^st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                4. 2^nd opposite party is exparte. 

                5. 3^rd opposite party entered appearance and filed a memo adopting the version submitted by the 1^st opposite party.     

                6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint is allowable or not?

                7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

                8. The Point:-  Complainant’s allegation is that the washing machine purchased by the complainant became defective during the warranty period.  The said complaint was reported to the opposite parties and technician from the 2^nd opposite party came and repaired the washing machine.  But the said machine again showed complaints.  This was intimated to the 2^nd opposite party and as per the direction of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant contacted the branch office of the 1^st opposite party who told the complainant to contact the 2^nd opposite party.  Accordingly the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party and a technician from the 2^nd opposite party came and inspected the machine and told the complainant that the complaints can be rectified on payment of Rs. 6,000/- as the complaint is with the PCB which costs Rs. 6,460/-.  As the product is having warranty and the complaint is occurred during the warranty period, opposite parties are liable to repair the washing machine free of cost.  But they are not prepared to rectify the complaints free of cost.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and hence they are liable to the complainant for the same. 

                9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and 2 documents were marked as Exts.A1 and A2.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 17.05.2011 for Rs.18,500/- in the name of the complainant in respect of the sale of the washing machine by the 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the warranty card of the 1^st opposite party issued by the 3^rd opposite party in respect of the washing machine purchased by the complainant as per Ext.A1 retail invoice.

                10. On the other hand, the contention of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party is that the complaints of the washing machine is in connection with the PCB, as the PCB has damaged by rats and there is no manufacturing defect and the alleged damages of the washing machine is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty.  Therefore, they argued that they are not liable to the complainant.

                11. Opposite parties has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour.  But they have cross-examined PW1.

                12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on records and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the sale of the washing machine and the alleged complaint.  The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the warranty conditions.  According to the complainant, the complaints of the washing machine is covered under the warranty.  But according to the opposite parties, the alleged complaint is not covered under the warranty conditions as the complaint is not a manufacturing defect and it is due to the attack by rats.

                13. Though opposite parties raised the above contentions, they have not adduced any evidence to prove their contention.  But it is pertinent to note that as per Ext.A1, the price of the washing machine is Rs.18,500/-.  A product manufactured by a manufacturer for selling it for Rs.18,500/-, it is their duty to install necessary security measures for preventing the attack of rats.  So even if it is admitted that the alleged complaints of the washing machine is caused due to the attack of rats,  it is the liability of the manufacturer to rectify the defect as they have not provided any security measures in the machine for preventing the attack of rats.  In the circumstances, the non rectification of the complaints of the washing machine by the 1^st opposite party is a clear deficiency in service.  Therefore, this complaint is allowable against the 1^st opposite party.  As the responsibility for rectifying the complaints of the washing machine is with the 1^st opposite party, we find no deficiency against the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party.

                14. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the 1^st opposite party is directed to rectify the complaints of the complainant’s washing machine within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the washing machine from the 3^rd opposite party and in that event, 3^rd opposite party is at liberty to collect the said amount from the 1^st opposite party.  In the nature and circumstances of this case no order for cost and compensation. 

                Declared in the Open Forum on this the 23^rd day of July, 2013.

                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                   (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)                :       (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  N. Ajithkumar

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1    :  Retail invoice dated 17.05.2011 for Rs.18,500/- issued by 

           the 3^rd opposite party in the name of the complainant.

A2    :  Warranty card of the 1^st opposite party issued by the 3^rd  

           opposite party in the name of the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) N. Ajithkumar, Aiswarya, Vengal, Alamthuruthi.P.O.,

                    Thiruvalla – 13.

(2) L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.51,

     Udyog Vihar, Surajpur, Kasna Road,

                    Greater Noida – 201306.

               (3) L.G. Service Centre, Manjadi. P.O., Thiruvalla.

(4)  Attinkara Electronics Division, Kurisukavala,       

     Thiruvalla.

(5)  The Stock File.