Order-10.
Date-05/06/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short is that OP-1 is a manufacturing unit, OP-2 is local branch office of OP-1,OP-3 and 4 are distributing cum selling agents, OP-5 is the authorized service centre of OP1 and 2. The Complainant purchased two washing machine which are manufactured by OP-1 from the shop of OP-3 and 4. At the time of purchase the Complainant was told that the Complainant will get 4 free service within the period of warranty of one year for each machine. But the OPs failed to provide the service as per the terms and conditions. It is alleged that after purchasing the Semi Automatic Machine, there was some problem regarding operation and drainage system of the machine. The Complainant made a complaint and mechanic came and solved then problem for the time being with a piece of cotton cloth, but it perished and the said problem recurred and the Complainant again made the complaint and mechanic came and demanded Rs.650/- for change of the touch panel within guaranteed free service period. The petitioner has also stated that some problem occurred with regard to the water outlet of the fully automatic another machine and the Complainant alleged a complaint vide letter dated 24.10.2016 to the OPs. A person named P. Halder visited the Complainant’s house and demanded Rs.170/- without servicing and touching his hands towards replacement charge of the outlet pipe and the Complainant refused to pay the same on the ground that the machine was within the warranty nperiod. Sri P. Halder also took away the purchase bills of the both Washing Machine for discussion of granting free services with the authorities but not returned till date on different pleas. The Complainant wrote a letter dated 03.12.2016 to OP-2 for repairing the outlet pipe. OPs however, took no step. The Complainant vide his letter dated 26.12.2016 asked for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from the OPs. OP No. 5 replied the same without forwarding original purchased bills of the Complainant which were taken away by the mechanics on 03.12.2016 and also demanded Rs.1250/- for the repairing purpose. It is alleged that OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and they are deficient in rendering services to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with other reliefs in terms of the petition of the Complainant.
OPs.-1 and 2 have contested the case in filing w.v. contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and the complaint is an absence of process of law as it does not disclose any cause of action.
It is stated that the Complainant using the online service call portal registered its first complaint which was numbered as H120150710113105. The service call was attended and registered for installation and same had been efficiently attended and demo had been given to the Complainant. The Complainant thereafter registered one complainant on 30.10.2015 which was also registered. The Complainant registered his grievances of drain. The same was attended and the drain pipe was cleaned with instruction not to put sandy cloths and before putting any cloths for washing in the machine clean sand from the same. The product after cleaning of the drain pipe worked in the proper manner. The Complainant without using any mode for registgration directly visited the service personnel on and around 12th March, 2016 and made complaint that machine is not working properly. However, the service team visited and found that the water is leaking from outlet pipe. The service team narrated the warranty condition to the Complainant, and requested to the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.170/- for outlet pipe.The Complainant without adhereingto the warranty condition blamed for deficient in service. However, as the Complainant denied to replace the pipe free of cost, the same drain pipe was not supplied to the complainant. These OPs have denied deficiency of sevice or unfair trade practice and had prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP 3 and 4 have also contested the case in filing w.v. contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in law and in fact. It is stated that the Complainant purchased the subject washing machine by cash from Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant was fully satisfied with the demonstration given by OP 3 and 4 and the Complainant being fully satisfied agreed to purchase the Washing Machine. It is stated that these OPs happened to be the dealer and not the manufacturer of Washsing Machine and as per terms of warranty the dealer is bound by the rules and regulations of manufacturer company and dealer has no right to replace regarding replacement of the said Washing Machine or other matters apart from givingproper guideline to contact with the service centre of manufacturing company for relief against alleged defect. These OPs submits that they are not liable for any fault of the Washing Machine and these OPs referred the matter to OP-1 on the basis of the information of the Complainant. It is stated that as the petition is devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed
Point for Decision
1) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant?
2) Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
3) Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. photocopy of letters on different dates between the parties and other documents on record.
It is an admitted position that Complainantg purchased Washing Machine being Model No. HWM60-0713S(W) by Cash from Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., 20 Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700 001 against proper receipt / cash memo and warranty certificate. The said Washing Machine is te point of dispute in between the parties in the instat case. The Washing Machine had also been installed at the premises of the Complainant. The Complainant registered one complaint on 31.10.2015 which was registered as KO20151031103394 with is grievance of drain. The same was attended and the drain pipe was cleaned with instruction not to put sandy cloth. The Complainant thereafter made another complaint on 12.03.2015 that the machine is not working properly. Service team visited the Complainant and found that wasleaking from outlet pipe and requested the Complainant to deposit Rs.170/- for outlet pipe. The allegation of the Complainant that he is not liable to pay Rs.170/- as the machine was within the warranty period and claim for replacement of the pipe free of cost Perused the job sheets in this regard. The issue is outlet pipe and claim of Rs.170/- as cost of the material. We find that the company provides standard warranty according to the terms and conditions. The Complainant has failed to show that outlet pipe is included within the warranty. We are afraid that no such warranty as claimed by the Complainant is ever given to any Washing Machine Customer under warranty terms. The Complainant had received the warranty card whereby terms and conditions are specifically mentioned. Hence, the Complainant’s claim for deficiency of service does not have any leg to stand. It is also alleged by the Complainant that one P. Halder, Mechanic took away the purchase bills of the Washing Machines for discussion of granting of free service with his authority but not returned the same. On perusal different correspondances, we are afraid we do not find any such reflection in the letters dated 03.12.2016 or 24.10.2016 addressed to the OPs from the end of the Complainant. Complainant also did not enter any G.D.E. in this regard befoe appropriate authority. Complainant has not alleged defect of the subject washing machine or about anyinternal mechanism or non-functioning or defect of internal parts etc. The only allegation is water leakage from outlet pipe and the value of which is Rs.170/-. We find it is not coming within warranty for replacement.
Considering all aspects and having regard to the materials on record, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Complainant has failed to establish the case against the OPs
Consequently, the case merits no success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.-1,2,3, 4 and ex-parte against the OP-5.
No order as to cost.
