BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
               ERNAKULAM (CAMP SITTING AT MUVATTUPUZHA).        
                                                     Date of filing    :  08.01.2015
                                                Date of Order  :  08.01.2016

Present :-
            Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose,        President.        
            Shri. Sheen Jose,                Member.
            Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari,        Member.            

C.C. No. 10/2015
Between
        
 
 Shyam Sreedharan      ::     Complainant        
 Senior Clinical embroyologiast,
 Sabine Hospital and Research  
 Centre, Pezhakkapilly P.O.,
 Muvattupuzha.         (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
 Court Road, Muvattupuzha)    
And
 
 I.  Manager      ::    Opposite Party       
     M/s. Haier applicances (India)
     Private Limited, Ravipuram, Kochi
     – 15.

2. Manager
    M/s Ascend service, No. 42/6,
    1stFloor, Opp. Anchumury Bus
    Stop, Ponnurunni, Vyttila P.O.,
    Kochi – 19.         ( Party in person)    

 O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

      A  brief statements of facts of this complaint is as follows :

         On 01.08.2012  the  complainant had purchased a Haier  washing machine from M/s. Fairdeal Electronics, New Delhi for Rs.15,000/-.  Two years  comprehensive warranty was provided for the  washing machine and 5 years warranty was provided for its compressor.     The washing machine became defective in the 2nd week of October,2014.  The matter was brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party.  Subsequently a technician of the  2nd opposite party attended the complaint and he replaced the panel circuit board of the machine.  But the said panel circuit board got damaged immediately  while the technician was trying to start the machine.  Thereafter the compressor of the machine was replaced.   But to no avail.   Hence  again the panel circuit board was replaced on 14.11.2014  by collecting Rs. 3200/- from the complainant.  But failed to make the machine functional.  Another technician came on 24.11.2014 and removed the panel circuit board   and collected Rs. 450/- towards service charge.   Subsequently the panel circuit board was replaced once again.   That also not helped to make the machine functioning.  Thereafter the machine was taken to the office of the 2nd opposite party.  Hence the complainant was  compelled to purchase a new machine by paying Rs. 18,000/-.  The failure on the part of the  technicians of the opposite parties to rectify the defects  even after repeated attempts would substantiate the fact that  the machine supplied to the complainant is having inherent manufacturing defect.   Due to the recurring defect of the washing machine supplied to the complainant, the complainant have deprived  of the washing machine facility for a long period.   The complainant is entitled  for the refund of the price of the washing machine Rs. 13,500/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization.   The complainant is also  seeking direction against the opposite parties for the refund of Rs. 3650/-  which was collected  by the 2nd opposite party towards repairing charges and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation.  Hence this complaint.

    2. Notices were issued to both the opposite parties and  the opposite parties  filed their respective versions.

        At the outset the opposite parties denied all and  in singular the contents,allegations, submissions and contentions raised in the complaint as same are traversed    and denied.   The complainant's complaint is based on his imagination that the service technician failed to rectify the problem of the washing machine.    He also imagined that his machine has a manufacturing defect though he submitted that after  two years from the date of purchase he filed a complaint.   The complainant had failed to provide technical report of an  eminent  technician though he is claiming that the washing machine is  suffering from manufacturing defect.    The opposite parties also submitted that the complainant has failed to disclose all the relevant facts of the case over which the present case is required to be  adjudicated by the Hon'ble Forum.    On 01.08.2012 the  complainant purchased one washing machine manufactured by Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Limited.  The said washing machine is having  24 months comprehensive warranty and 60 months motor warranty subject to certain conditions as mentioned in the warranty card.    The opposite parties provided efficient  ' after sale service '  for all its products including the said washing machine   and whenever the complainant reported any difficulty in the functioning  of the said    washing machine, it was immediately attended to by the service technicians.      As per the   complainant's own complaint, he made his first complaint after the expiry of comprehensive warranty which started from the date of purchase i.e. 01.08.2012 and expired on 31.07.2014,   That this complaint was as admitted by the complainant was duly attended.    On the inspection of the said washing machine it was found that the product was working in good condition, hence the service technician had charged service for visit i.e. Rs. 450/- only.   This fact can be deduced  from the cash receipt dated 14.11.2014.  Thereafter the  complainant registered another complaint on 24.11.2014.  That day the same service technician visited the the place of the complainant and found that the the panel circuit board  is not working.  After getting  confirmation of the complainant replaced the panel circuit board  on the same day.   Thereafter the service technician clearly instructed the complainant that if he will let the wet cloths lying on the  panel circuit board then the panel circuit board may again  get faulty,   as there is some inherent mechanical fault.  Since that day the  complainant become adamant  regarding this issue and time  and again made false complaints and thereafter demanded replacement of the said washing  machine.  That due to his unjustified complaints, the manager of the 1st opposite party  instructed  to the 2nd opposite party to do the thorough inspection of the said    washing machine so that the complainant may be satisfied.  However the complainant thereafter not come back to receive the  washing machine or the inspection report.  The opposite parties  numerous times requested the complainant to take back  the said washing machine but he demanded refund of his money.   The complainant after using the said washing machine firstly claimed refund and when his unlawful demands were not accepted by the opposite parties, he filed this case before this Hon'ble Forum over the basis of  false, wrong, untrue and incomplete  facts and thereby attempted to mislead this Hon'ble Forum.   More over the Hon'ble Forum  allow the opposite parties to produce the above said washing machine before the  Hon'ble Forum and may prove that the said washing machine is in perfect working condition. It is denied that the complainant purchased the said washing machine for Rs. 15,000/- and also denied that the said washing machine was having a comprehensive warranty of  2 years and 5 years warranty on compressor.  In this regard it is submitted that firstly the product was  purchased for Rs. 13,240/- only.  Secondly the comprehensive warranty is provided for 24 months and no warranty for compressor was given.    The warranty for motor of washing machine was of 60 months.  It is also pertinent to mention here that  it is admitted that the complainant [paid the amount of Rs. 450/- against the service charge and Rs. 3200/- for panel circuit board.   However it is also submitted that after the expiry of warranty period the complainant is required to do so.  The amount is collected legally from the complainant.  The complainant deliberately alleged that the washing machine has the inherent manufacturing defect which he never proved in any way.    It is also submitted that  the complainant neither had nor furnished any report of an eminent technician to support his claim.  The complainant also not justified anywhere in his complaint that  if the washing machine had  inherent manufacturing defeat then how it worked for two years. The complainant made only one genuine complaint that is on 24.11.2014 and same was snot only attended but the problem was  also solved by the opposite parties.    It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant failed to provide even any date on which he made any complaint during the warranty period.   It is also submitted that the complaint's claim are baseless and false and he is  attempting to take undue benefit of the rights provided to him under the law of the land.  The Hon'ble Forum may graciously be pleased to dismiss the present consumer complaint, , which has been filed with malafide intention only to harass the opposite parties with exemplary costs.
                                                        3. From the above pleadings of  the parties to the complaint the following issues  emanated for the consideration of this Forum :    
Whether the complainant  is entitled to get refund of the
               price of the washing machine ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of
Rs. 3650/- which was collected by the second  
opposite parties towards repairing charges and have
have proved any deficiency in service on the part
of the 2nd opposite party ?
Reliefs and  costs ?​

    4. The documentary evidence furnished by the complainant were marked as Exts. A1 to A3 and no oral or documentary  evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite parties.  Heard the Counsel for the complainant.     

     5. Issue No. (i) :   As per Ext. A1,   the complainant had purchased a washing machine for a price   of Rs. 13,500/- dated 01.08.2012  which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party.    Ext. A2 cash receipt dated 14.11.2014 would go to show that the   2nd opposite party  collected  3200/-  from the complainant for replacing the panel  circuit board.  Ext. A2 cash receipt dated 24.11.2014 issued by the 2nd opposite party would show that the 2nd opposite party collected Rs. 450/- from the complainant, the  service technician charged  service charge for his visit.   Ext. A3 is the warranty card of the washing machine. Admittedly on 01.08.2012 the complainant purchased one washing machine manufactured by  M/s. Haier Appliances (India) Private Limited.  The above said washing machine is having 24  months  comprehensive warranty and 60 months   motor  warranty subject to certain conditions as mentioned in the warranty card.   It is also noted that the complainant had made his first complaint after the expiry of two years  comprehensive warranty which started from the date of purchase on 01.08.2012 and expired on  31.07.2014.  We could not find any manufacturing defect or other recurring defect of the above washing machine.  The complainant could not proved any manufacturing defect alleged by his  complaint.   The complainant deliberately alleged that the washing machine has inherent manufacturing defect which he never proved in any way.   The complainant neither had nor furnished any report of a emanated technician to support his claim.  Further more the complainant also not justified any way in his complaint that if the washing machine had inherent  manufacturing defect then how it worked for two years.   He itself admitted that the washing machine had any complaint within the two years comprehensive warranty period.  The issue is found in favour of the   opposite party and we are of the Forum discard the refund or replacement of the washing machine as prayed by the complainant.
                           
    6. Issue No. (ii) :  The  complainant is alleging that the washing machine  became defective in the second week of October, 2014.   Subsequently a technician of the second opposite party attended to the complaint and replaced the panel circuit board of the machine.  Ext. A2 would go to show that the second opposite party collected Rs. 3200/-from the complainant to replaced the panel circuit board.  At the very same time  failed to make the machine functioning and another  technician came on 24.11.2014 and removed the panel circuit board and the the said board was replaced.  Unfortunately the machine could not functioned properly.  Thereafter the machine was taken on the office of the second opposite party.  Due to the defect of the washing machine and mismanagement of the service of the technicians, the complainant has been   deprived of the washing machine facilities for a long period.   In that view of the matter we are of the Forum,  found that deficiency in service is writ large on the part of the second opposite party.  The complainant is legally entitled to  cure the  defect of the washing machine and to make it perfect working condition.   We think that the above decision is enough to abide the agony of the complainant.  Therefore  we referring from refund of repairing charges.

    7. Issue No. (iii) :    Evidently  the complainant could not use his washing machine for a long period due to the  fault on the  part of the second opposite party.  The   complainant has to approach this Forum to get his right established, thereby he had to expense money and have to waste his precious time. The above facts call  for compensation and costs of the proceedings,   we awarded Rs. 4000/- towards  compensation and costs of the proceedings.
     In the result, we  partly allow the complaint and  direct as follows :
        1. The 2nd opposite party shall forthwith cure the defect
                      of the washing machine under  dispute to  make it in
                      perfect working condition free of costs.
                 2. The 2nd  opposite  party  shall  also  pay Rs. 4000/- to
                     the  complainant  towards  compensation  and  costs
                     of this proceedings.  
                The above said Order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

           Pronounced in the open Forum on this the  08th day of January, 2016.

                                                    V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.    
                
                                Cherian. K. Kuriakose,    President.    
                            
                                Sheen Jose, Member.

                
A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

 
               Exhibit A1
               Exhibit A2
               Exhibit A3      ::
  ::
  ::    Retail invoice
Cash receipt dt. 14.11.2014
Cash receipt dt. 24.11.2014    
                                                         
                                                             
Opposite party's Exhibits        :-   Nil

              
Depositions                      ::   Nil

                                    =========