BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 12 / 2008 TUESDAY THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2011. C. Vimala, W/o. Mr. Chinnadurai, 1/1 Reddy Thoppu, Ambur, Vellore District. … Complainant. -Vs – 1. M/s. IFB Industries Limited, Rep by its Manager, Plot No.IND-5 Sector – I, East Calcutta Township, Colcutta 700 078. 2. M/s. Darling Electronics, Rep. by its Manager, 3/2 Officers Line, Vellore 632 001. … Opposite parties. . . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 28.2.11, in the presence of Tmt. V.J. Nirmala, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. V.T. Narandiran, Advocate for the opposite party-1 and Thiru. R. Nithyanandam, Advocate for the opposite party-2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of IFB Machines and 2nd opposite party is the Authorized Service Centre, Local Dealer at Vellore. The complainant purchased IFB, Digital (6 KG) IFB washing Machine (NM – 0530) on 3.7.06 from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.25,500/- under bill No. 25978 and there is a warranty for two years. On 5.6.07 the washing Machine did not work properly and informed several times to the 2nd opposite party over phone on the same day, one of the representative from 2nd opposite party checked the Washing Machine and told that Board (Component) has to be changed and that board has to be come from the 1st opposite party i.e. from the Manufacturer, Head office at Colcutta and there was no stock at Vellore. Inspite of several phone calls from 5.6.07 and also by several direct intimation given to the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party never bothered to rectify with the defect in the Washing machine. At last a written complaint dt. 4.7.07 was sent through Courier Service by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd opposite party on 5.7.07. In the warrant card the opposite parties have stated as follows: “IFB – Industries Limited warrants to the original domestic purchaser of this washing machine (“Appliance”) that it is free from defects in workmanship and materials. During 24 months from the date of purchase of the new washing machine all the parts of the washing machine which proved to be defective in workmanship and / or materials shall be replaced or repaired free of charge on intimation to the company / company’s authorized service center nearest to the place where the appliance is installed. This warrant is subject to limitation of Warranty. “ The complainant washing machine is under warranty for two years from 31.7.06. A registered legal notice dt. 27.7.07 was issued to both the opposite parties, but till today the opposite parties neither complied with nor rectified the defect. The conduct of the opposite parties in rendering their service despite complaint, notice through telephone and by direct amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore direct the opposite parties to replace a new washing machine with warranty by exchanging the old one or to pay the cost of washing machine of Rs.25,500/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase of washing machine and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, pain and suffering and torture suffered by the complainant and also deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties and Rs.2000/- towards cost of legal notice and Rs.5000/- towards cost of these proceedings. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the 1st opposite party is as follows: The 1st opposite partly denies each and every allegation and averments made by the complainant in his complaint except those which are expressly admitted herein. The very complainant does not constitute a consumer disputes under the C.P. Act and is a abuse of process of law and the complaint has been filed with an oblique motive. The washing machine is working properly even today and in fact the relief of revoking of warranty is not within the scope and jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum and the complainant has to approach the Civil Court for the same wherein the machine is properly working. The very compliant is vague and neither the allege deficiency is clear nor the defect of the washing machine is made out and in fact the complainant has not even whispered as to present fate of the washing machine if it presently working or not. The complainant has purchased IFB Digital (6Kg) IFB Washing Machine (NM-0530) on 3.7.06 for a sum of Rs.25,500/- The complaint has become in fructuous in as much as the opposite party service had attended to the machine and had serviced the same and the same is working properly and claim of consumer deficiency does not survive any more, in fact the complainant has assured that she would withdraw the complaint and nothing survives in the complaint. The complainant had imaginary defects with the machine and infact the complainant had given a complaint on 28.7.07 and the complaint was serviced and closed on 30.7.07 for the only reason is that the usage of the hard water in the washing machine which has damaged the machine and also the complainant. 3. They had been extremely prompt and professional in their service and the very allegation of consumer delay is untenable and in fact it is apparent that even when the complainant had given complaints later on 7.9.07 and the same was also serviced and closed on the same day itself and the reason was the same and the complainant had given another complaint on 3.11.07 and the complaint was closed on the same day itself, and the reason was the same and the complainant had given a complaint on 2.5.08 and the complaint was closed on 4.5.08 and it was only the improper usage of the complainant and the same was also explained to the complainant by the representatives of the opposite parties. There is no problem in the unit the water particles due to the hard water used had formed scales inside the tube of the machine and the same was cleaned and removed and after decaling the same was working perfectly and the machine is in good working condition. The 1st opposite party denies all the allegation in para 2,3,5 and 7, are totally false. There is absolutely no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant and there is no negligence and there is no incompetent service and they have attended to the complaints regularly and promptly. Therefore this complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 4. The averments in the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party are as follows; The 2nd opposite party Darling Electronics Limited is only a local dealer of the 1st opposite partly consumable electronic goods, in was wrongly stated in the complaint that the 2nd opposite party is a authorized service centre, as such impleading the opposite party in this case is unnecessary and misjoinder of party. The 2nd opposite party denies all the allegation contained in para 2, of the complaint that the complainant called over phone and that the board was damaged and had to be changed which is totally false and concocted one. The 2nd opposite party denies the allegation contained in para-3 of the complaint that the complainant had made several calls and the 2nd opposite party did not bother to rectify the defect with the washing machine which is totally false and untrue, the fact is that the complainant had called on the above mentioned dates and the same was rectified. There is no deficiency of service, or negligence, incompetent service on the part of the opposite party, as they have attended to the complaints regularly and promptly even though the 2nd opposite party is only a authorized dealer on receiving complaints from the complainant attended the complaints and rectified the same, by engaging qualified authorized service persons. There is no mental or economic suffering on account of the alleged negligence by the opposite party and the amount claimed is too excessive, exorbitant. Therefore it is prayed that this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint and case with punitive cost. 5. Now the points for consideration are: (a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties? (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 6. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainants and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 7. POINT NO. (a): It is admitted facts of the parties that the 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of IFB washing Machine and 2nd opposite party is a local dealer at Vellore of the 1st opposite party. The complainant purchased IFB Digital (6 kg) IFB Washing Machine (NM-0530) on 3.7.06 for a sum of Rs.25,500/- from the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A1 cash bill No.25978. 8. The complainant contended that on 5.6.07 the above said washing machine did not work properly and informed several times to the 2nd opposite party over phone, and on the same day one of the representative from 2nd opposite party checked the Washing Machine and told that Board (Component) has to be changed and that board has to be come from the 1st opposite party Head Office at Colcutta and there was no stock at Vellore. Inspite of several phone calls from 5.6.07 and also by several direct intimation given to the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party never bothered to rectify with the defect in the washing machine. At last a written complaint Ex.A3, dt. 4.7.07 was sent through Courier Service to the 2nd opposite party. But they never recertify the defects in the washing machine. Therefore a legal notice Ex.A4, dt. 27.7.07 was issued to both the opposite parties but till today the opposite parties neither complied with nor rectified the defect. Therefore the conduct of the opposite parties in rendering their service despite complaint, notice through telephone and by direct, amounts to deficiency in service. 9. The 1st opposite party contended that the complainant had given a complaint on 28.7.07 and the complaint was serviced and closed on 30.7.07 for the only reason is that the usage of the hard water in the washing machine which has damaged the machine of the complainant by forming scales in the machine’s tub. When the complainant had given complaints later on 7.9.07 and the same was also serviced and closed on the same day itself and the reasons was the same. The complainant had given another complaint on 3.11.07 and the same was closed on the same day itself and the reason was the same. The complainant had given a complaint on 2.5.08 and the complaint was closed on 4.5.08 and it was only the improper usage of the complainant. It is further contended that there is no problem in the unit the water particles due to the hard water used had formed scales inside the tube of the machine and the same was cleaned and removed and after decaling the same was working perfectly and the machine is in good working condition. Therefore there is absolutely no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and there is no negligence and there is no incompetent service and they have attended to the complaints regularly and promptly. The 2nd opposite party contented that even though the 2nd opposite party is only a authorized dealer on receiving complaints from the complainant attended the complaints and rectified the same by engaging qualified authorized service persons. 10. The contention of the complainant that inspite of several phone calls from 5.6.07 and by several direct intimation given to the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party never bothered to rectify with the defect in the washing machine. At last a written complaint Ex.A3, dt. 4.7.07 was sent to the 2nd opposite party. Again the complainant had sent legal notice Ex.A4, dt. 27.7.07 to both the parties and the same was acknowledged by them but till today the opposite parties neither complied with nor rectified the defect. From the perusal of complaint Ex.A3, dt. 4.7.07 it is mentioned that :- “31.7.2006 Bjjpapy; jA;fSila filapy; IFB-th&pA; bkrpd; (6Kg) thA;fpBdd;. njw;F 2 Mz;Lfs; cj;juthjKk; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Bkw;brhd;d th&pA; bkrpd; fle;j 5.6.2007 md;W gGjile;Jtpl;lJ. g[fhiu 5.6.07 md;Bw jA;fSila rh;tP!; brd;lh; bjhiyBgrpf;F (0416-2240510) bjhptpj;Bjd;. mth;fs; rhp bra;tjhf bjhptpj;jhh;fs;. MdhYk; nd;W tiuapy; gGij rhp bra;atpy;iy. njdhy; vdf;F mjpf bghUl; bryt[k; kd csr;rYk; Vw;gLfpwJ. jhA;fs; chpa eltof;if vLj;J th&pA; bk&pid tpiutpy; rhp bra;a BtZkha; Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;. BkYk; fhyjhkjk; Vw;gl;lhy; Efh;Bthh; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; Kiwapl BeUk; vd;gij jA;fSf;F tUj;jj;Jld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpBwd;.” In the legal notice Ex.A4, dt. 27.7.07 the complainant had stated that on 5.6.07 the washing machine did not work properly. The same was informed over phone (0416 – 220510) to 2nd opposite party several times on the same day but there is no response. Finally she sent a written complaint Ex.A3, dt. 4.7.07 and the same was acknowledged by 2nd opposite party on 5.7.07, but the opposite parties did not rectify the defect. 11. On behalf of the 1st opposite party one Mrs. Ashutosh Verma working as Assistant Manager in IFB Industries Limited at No.6 (old No.37) Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai – 26 had field a proof affidavit. The 1st opposite party has stated in his proof affidavit that the complainant had given a complaint on 28.7.07 and the complaint was serviced and closed on 30.7.07 for the only reason is that the usage of the hard water (water which contains great amount of minerals and non soluble substances) in the washing machine of the complainant by forming scale in the machine’s tub. When the complainant had given a complaint later on 7.9.07 and the same was also serviced and closed on the same day itself and the reason was the same. Again the complainant had given another complaint on 3.11.07 and the complaint was closed on the same day and the complainant had given a complaint on 2.5.08 and the complaint was closed on 4.5.08, hence there is no problem in the unit, the water particles due to the hard water used had formed scales inside the tub of the machine and the same was cleaned and removed and after descaling the same was working perfectly. But there is no documents or job card or evidence of the Authorized service Engineer or Mechanic of opposite parties to prove the above contention mentioned in the proof affidavit of the 1st opposite party. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party one Mr. Muruganandam working as manager in Darling Electronics Pvt Ltd., at No.3/2 Officers Line, Vellore-1 submitted a proof affidavit. The 2nd opposite party has stated in his proof affidavit that even though the 2nd opposite party is only a authorized dealer on receiving several complaints from the complainant, and the same was rectified by the staff of the 1st opposite party. But there is no documents or job card to rectified the defects to prove the above contention of the 2nd opposite party. Therefore it is clear that even after receiving a written complaint Ex.A3, dt. 4.7.07 and a registered legal notice Ex.A4, dt. 27.7.07 from the complainant the opposite parties neither complied with nor rectify the defects in the IFB washing machine. 12. It is admitted fact that the complainant’s washing machine is under warranty for two years from 31.7.06 in the warranty card the opposite parties have stated as follows: “IFB- Industries Limited warrants to the original domestic purchaser of this washing machine (“Appliance”) that it is free form defects in workmanship and materials. During 24 months from the date of purchase of the new washing machine all the parts of the washing machine which proved to be defective in workmanship and / or materials shall be replaced or repaired free of charge on intimation to the company / company’s authorized service centre nearest to the place where the appliance is installed. This warrant is subject to limitation of warranty.” Therefore it is clear that within the warranty period, the above said washing machine did not work properly and inspite of several phone calls and even after written complaint, the Authorized Service Mechanic of the opposite parties have not complied with he defect. Therefore the complainant had sent a legal noticed Ex.A4, dt. 27.7.07 to the opposite parties and the same was acknowledged through Ex.A5 & Ex.A6 by them. Bu the opposite parties neither complied with nor rectified the defect. 13. According to the opposite parties that there is no problem in the unit the water particles due to the hard water used had formed scales inside the tube of the machine and the same was cleaned and removed and after descaling the same was working perfectly. But there is no document or job card issued by the authorized service mechanic of the opposite parties or evidence of the authorized service mechanic or staff of the 1st opposite party to prove the above contention of the opposite parties. It is admitted fact of the parties that the complainant that he purchased IFB, Digital (6 kg) IFB washing machine (NM – 0530) on 31.7.06 through the 2nd opposite party who is a authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party and the said washing machine is under warranty for two years from 31.7.06 on 5.6.07. The contention of the complainant that the above said washing machine did not work properly and inspite of several phone calls and by several direct intimation given to the 2nd opposite party but the 2nd opposite party did not rectify with the defect in the washing machine. Finally she sent a written complaint Ex.A3,dt. 4.7.07 to the 2nd opposite party and thereafter she was also sent a registered legal notice, dt. 27.7.07 to both the parties but the opposite parties neither complied with nor rectify the defects. In the warranty card the 1st opposite party had clearly stated that during 24 months from the date of purchase of the new washing machine all the parts of the washing machine which proved to be defective in the workmanship and / or materials shall be replaced or repaired free of charge on intimation to the company / company’s authorized service centre nearest to the place where the appliance is installed. Based on the warranty after receive the phone calls or a written complaint and a registered legal notice, the opposite parties must complied the defect. But they did not rectify defect it is clear that the opposite parties have violated the conditions mentioned in the warranty. 14. Hence, taking into account with regard to the contention of the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, we have come to the conclusion that the attitude of the opposite parties herein, would have certainly committed deficiency in service. In such circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence we answer this point (a) is accordingly. 15. POINT NO. (b): In view of our findings on point No.(a) & (b), the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace a new washing machine with warranty by exchanging the old one or to pay the cost of washing machine of Rs.25,500/- under Ex.A1 Cash bill to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and torture in view of deficiency in service on their part. Hence this point (b) is also accordingly. 16. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace a new washing machine with warranty by exchanging the old one or to pay the cost of washing machine of Rs.25,500/- (Rupees twenty five thousand and five hundred only) under Ex.A1 Cash bill to the complainant. 2 They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and torture in view of the deficiency in service on their part. 3. and also to a pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards the cost of this complaint. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the above said amounts within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant is also entitled to interest on the above said sum @ 9 % p.a from the date of default till the date of payment. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 29th day of March 2011. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1 - 31.7.06 - X-copy of Cash / Credit Bill No.25978. Ex.A2- -- - X-copy of warranty from 31.7.06 to 30.7.08. Ex.A3- 4.7.07 - X-copy of written complaint sent by the complainant . Ex.A4- 27.7.07 - X-copy of Legal notice. Ex.A5- 1.8.07 - X-copy of Postal Ack. Card. Ex.A6- 3.8.07 - X-copy of Postal Ack. Card. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: .. Nil .. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
