CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present. Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Memb CC.No.203/07 Tuesday, the day of 22nd, September, 2009.
Petitioner. C.R. Sreedevi Chenichettu Trikodithanam Changanacherry. (Adv.Anitha.V.R.) Vs. Opposite parties. 1. The Manager Vani Home Appliances Changanacherry. (Adv.C.C.Varghese) 2. The Manager Goodwill Enterprises IFB Authorised Service Centre, Kottayam. (Adv.Tom Mathew) 3. The Manager IFB Industries Ltd. Plot No.IND-5, Sector-1.East Calcutta Township, Calcutta-700 078. (Adv.V.Philip Mathew) O R D E R Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas, Member. The case of the petitioner's case is follows. The petitioner purchased a fully automatic washing machine of IFB Company (Tumble Wash-Model Elena) for a price of Rs.17,500/- from the first opposite party on 29-9-2006. On the first use of the washing machine -2- itself, it was not working properly. It vibrated, made high noise and jumped on the floor. The petitioner informed the said matter to the first opposite party. A technician came, replaced the tub and adviced to use Henko and protacta soap powder. Even after the said alterations the defect persisted. On further complaint the second opposite party came inspected and advised to put it on a stand and to replace the controlling channel. All these were done by spending an amount of Rs.1089/-. The opposite parties made several attempt to rectify the machine but even after the efforts, the machine showed the very same defect at the same intensity as it was used at the first instance. The opposite parties failed to rectify the serious defects completely within the warranty period. According to the petitioner the opposite party sold the washing machine with serious manufacturing defects to the petitioner and thus caused mental agony, loss of money and hardships to the petitioner. The washing machine did not serve the purpose even for a minimum reasonable period. The petitioner demanded to replace the said machine with a new one but the opposite parties did not heed to it. The petitioner alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this petition is filed praying replacement of the machine or refund of the purchase price, refund of Rs.1089, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as cost. All the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions. The first opposite party filed version denying the allegations of the petitioner. It contained the following main contentions. The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
-3- At the time of purchase, the functions of the machine were demonstrated and the petitioner was satisfied. On getting complaint about the machine the first opposite party arranged authorized mechanics from the second opposite
party for curing the defects.
4. As per the report of the opposite party the washing machine is fully perfect and no defect is found and therefore the petition is not sustainable until defect is proved.
5. It is the problem caused due to the mode of use of the washing machine. The petitioner is bound to keep the machine on flat
floor at the time of washing.
6. The IFB machines are fully checked with computer before selling. Therefore no chance of manufacturing defects to the washing machine.
Hence the first opposite party prayed to dismiss the petition with costs to them. The second opposite party filed version for himself and for the third opposite party. It came with the following main contentions. the machine will not function properly if the level of the floor is not identical and if the right quantity of recommended soap powder is not used. Whenever complaint was intimated, it was rectified free of cost and without any deficiency in service.
-5- Hence the second and third opposite parties prayed to dismiss the petition with costs to them. Points for consideration are: Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and costs.
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both the parties, exhibits A1 to A3. And C1. Point No.1. The petitioner averred that the washing machine jumps on the floor and make high noise while working. It is further averred by the petitioner that the defect persists evenafter installing the machine on the trolley and changing the tub and soap powder. The third opposite party counter averred that the alleged defect, if any has occured due to the improper wiring in the house, frequent power fluctuation and keeping it in an unsuitable place without proper safeguards. But nothing is placed on evidence to prove the averment regarding improper wiring and frequent power fluctutation. The petitioner has produced the job card dated 17/3/07 and it is marked as exhibit A2. As per ext A2, the tub of the said machine was replaced in the third month of its purchase. If a brand new washing machine shows malfunctioning within a short span of its purchase then no consumer will be satisfied. In this instant case, the petitioner had spent Rs.17,500/- for the purchase of the washing machine and Rs.874/- for the trolley which was bought as per the opposite parties -6- 'advice'. Evenafter spending such a huge amount for a washing machine it failed to serve the purpose without complaints. The petitioner again averred that due to the hardships suffered by her, she don't prefer any replacement or rectification of the product but need only the refund of purchase price with 12% interest. Further more an expert commissioner was appointed by the forum as requested by the petitioner to ascertain the condition of the washing machine. The expert commissioner filed commission report and it is marked as exhibit C1. While inspection the commissioner examined the working of the washing machine by keeping it on the trolley with load and without load. In both cases he noticed extra ordinary vibration and movement of the washing machine along with the trolley over the floor. The commissioner also examined the working of the machine by keeping it on the floor with and without load. Then also he noticed extra ordinary vibration and movement of the machine over the floor. According to the commissioner the alleged defects occur due to the malfunctioning of the suspension system. The commissioner opined that the malfunctioning may be either due to the weak shock absorber in the suspension system or due to the manufacturing defect of motor, tub, drum or any other parts present in the suspension system. The commissioner suggested that either by replacing the suspension system or by replacing the other parts mounted in the suspension system the complaints can be rectified. Whereas the third opposite party in his objection to the commission report stated that the commissioner has not found any manufacturing defect for the washing machine. This complaint -7- was filed in September 2007. Even after the expiry of two years from the date of complaint, the third opposite party had not rectified the alleged defects in the machine to the complainant's satisfaction. From the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that whenever such a sitution arises, the endeavour should be to end the dispute between the parties once for all. Therefore we feel it reasonable to direct the opposite parties to refund the purchase price to the petitioner. Point No 1 is found accordingly. It is a misconceived notion that the goods cannot be declared as defective unless it suffers from manufacturing defect. If the good had undergone repairs time and again then it reflects its poor quality and the same has to be declared defective. In our view the quality of every good has to be tested on the basis of the word defect as provided under s.2(1) (f) of consumer protection act, which provides as under ''any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force as or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to anygoods''. Here the third opposite party instead of acknowledging the malfunctioning of the product forced the petitioner to knock at the doors of the consumer forum. So in our opinion, the third opposite party is liable for deficiency in service.
-8- Point No.2 In view of the findings in point No.1 the petition is allowed. In the result, the petition is ordered as follows. The third opposite party will refund the purchase price Rs.17,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realisation along with cost of Rs.1000/- to the petitioner. As interest is ordered no compensation is allowed. Before receiving the refund money the petitioner will deposit the washing machine to the third opposite party. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of its copy.
Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the petitioner. Exhibit A1 Customer copy for purchase dated 29/9/06. Exhibit A2 Installation sheet dated 17/3/07. Exhibit A3 Invoice cum receipt dted 26/3/07 Exhibit A4 Invoice dated 21/8/07. Documents of the opposite parties. Nil. Exhibit C1 Expert Commissioner's report is marked as exhibit C1. By Orders,
Senior Superintendent.
Kgr/5 copies.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
