KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.540/2013
JUDGMENT DATED 28/02/2014
(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.330/2012 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram dated, 14/06/2013)
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
M/s. IFB Industries Ltd.,
36/1923 Sebastin Road,
Kallor, Kochi-682 017.
(By Adv: Sri. S. Reghukumar)
Vs
RESPONDENTS:
M.S. Viswambaran,
“Akhshara Sree”,
Thenhippalam Post,
Malappuram District,
Pin-673 636.
(By Adv: Sri. P. Praveen)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
Aggrieved by the Order passed by the CDRF, Malappuram in C.C.No.330/12 the opposite party preferred this appeal. The Forum Below allowed the complaint and directed to pay Rs.33,383/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- for mental agony.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased an IFB washing machine for Rs.25,200/- + Rs.200/- as delivery charges on 11/06/2003 from the opposite party. The machine started complaints and the mechanic advised to replace certain machine parts. The machine was having two years warranty and the complainant had to pay Rs.6,396/- on 30/07/2008 for spare parts. Thereafter the defects continued and on 24/06/2011 entered into an AMC No.957 remitted Rs.1,886/- and on 15/08/2012 AMC renewed. During this period the machine was having vibration and huge sound. Thereafter one mechanic came and advised to replace certain parts and was unable to repair the washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that his wife was diabetic and was having several diseases and could not use the washing machine for her daily purposes. Even after informing several times no one attended the defects of the washing machine which resulted in mental agony and it is to be compensated. The complaint is filed for Rs.36,008/- and Rs.5 Lakhs towards the mental agony and hardship due to the illness. He also claimed the cost of proceedings.
3. The notice issued from the District Forum was received by the opposite parties office on 12/01/2013 but unfortunately the manager concerned left to his native place and he was terminated from the office of opposite party. Though the notice received the opposite party could not contest the case and the case was proceeded exparte.
4. When this appeal came up for final hearing the counsel for the appellant submitted that the notice issued was miserably could not get notice of the opposite party’s office as the manager left the office. So the opposite party was unable to contest the case due to the lack of attention regarding the receipt of the notice. It is submitted that the machine purchased on 11/06/2003. The machine was using and as and when informed of the complaints, it was attended and replaced the defective parts. As per the warranty conditions the customer has to bear the cost of the spare parts after the warranty period. It is true that there had an Annual Maintenance Contract which was renewed and during the AMC period also cost of the spare parts had to bear by the customer as per the terms and conditions of the contract. In this case, the complainant entered into AMC only after 3 years. There is no expert evidence adduced by the complainant which is mandatory under section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. There is no case for the complainant that he was not attended or the spare parts were not made available to the complainant during the AMC. Further in the absence of expert evidence no manufacturing defect can be alleged by the complainant. It is also pointed out that the defect occurred after the warranty period. Hence the cost of the spare parts has to bear by the customer. The counsel prayed for a remand of the case in order to adduce evidence as it is an exparte order. The complaint is filed after 8 years.
5. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the machine purchased by the complainant who is 69 years old man and the machine was very essential for his day to day life. The appellants charged for the spare parts though having AMC in 2011 which was also renewed in 2012. The opposite parties were not regular or prompt in servicing the washing machine and as such the Forum Below allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant. The machine was having several defects from 2008 onwards causing mental agony and hardship to the family of the complainant.
6. Heard both sides in detail. It is true that the machine is having several defects and it is particular to note that the defects occurred after the warranty period. It is also pertinent to point out that the complainant was having AMC from 2011 which was renewed in 2012 also. As pointed out by the appellant’s counsel the manufacturing defect was not proved which is mandatory under section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. We find that the order is not a considered one as the opposite party was exparte in this case. We are of the considered view that an opportunity is to be given to the opposite party to adduce evidence in support of their case.
In the result, appeal is allowed and remanded back to the Forum Below for filing version and to adduce evidence in support of the case. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant on appearance before the District Forum in order to contest the case and the parties are to appear before the Forum Below on 26/03/2014.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below along with LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Sa.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.540/2013
JUDGMENT DATED 28/02/2014
sa
