D.O.F. 28.09.2010 D.O.O. 27.01.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010. C.C.No.238/2010 Dr. P.K. Anilkumar, Staff Quarters, Community Health Centre, Pappinissery P.O. : Complainant Kannur District (Rep. by Adv. K.V. Manoj Kumar) 1. Managing Director/ Manager, Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Joseph and Valentines Building, Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Jawahar Nagar, Kadavanthra, Cochin-20. : Opposite parties 2. Proprietor/ Manager, Fridge House, Court Road, Kannur – 670001 O R D E R Sri. K. Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to replace the defective washing machine with good working machine and to pay a sum of ` 20,000 towards loss of compensation together with ` 2,000 as cost of this litigation. The facts of the case of the complainant in brief are as follows : Complainant had purchased a Samsung fully automatic washing machine bearing Item code No.SWA 85 HAG from the shop of OP No.2. The machine was manufactured by opposite party No.1. Complainant has paid a sum of ` 13,525 towards the price as per invoice No. K-000522. Opposite party No.1 & 2 assured 2 years guaranty and lifetime proper service of the washing machine. The machine became defective on several occasions due to manufacturing defects and the defects were rectified by the service persons from the opposite parties. Atlast on 18.06.2010 the machine totally became defective due to manufacturing defect and the same was informed to opposite party No.2. The service person of opposite party No.2 took the board of the washing machine for rectifying the defects from the service centre. He assured but rectify the machine within 3 days. Subsequently complainant contacted opposite party No.1 & 2 and they have requested time for solving the grievances but all the attempts were in vain. Hence lawyer notice was sent to both parties on 26.03.2003. Opposite parties have not taken any initiative to replace the defective machine till the date. The opposite parties irresponsibly dealt with the matter and caused heavy inconvenience to the complainant. Hence this complaint. On receiving the complaint Forum sent notice to both opposite parties. Notice was served properly to both of them but they have not appeared before the Forum. Subsequently opposite party 1 & 2 called absent and set exparte and thereafter exparte evidence was taken. Complainant filed chief affidavit in tune with the pleadings. He has given evidence that he has purchased a Samsung fully automatic washing machine from opposite party 1 by paying an amount of ` 13,525. Ext.A1 is the receipt produced by the complainant to show the payment. Ext.A1 issued by Fridge House reveals that the machine was purchased from opposite party No.2. Complainant deposed that the machine was totally became defective and the same was informed to opposite party 2. Opposite party 2 sent their employees and the board of the machine was taken with them for rectifying the defect. They assured that it will be repaired within 3 days. But there was no reply after 3 days. So complainant contacted opposite party No.1 & 2 several time but there was no result. He further deposed that since there was no reply either from opposite party 1 or 2 he sent lawyer notice calling upon to settle the matter amicably by replacing a good working machine and also to pay 10,000 to complainant. Both parties did not sent reply to Ext.A2 notice. Ext.A2 is the copy of the lawyer notice sent by complainant to opposite party 1 & 2. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt that proves complainant has sent notice to opposite party 1 & 2. Complainant is also produced photocopy of the receipt issued by Anil Kumar M., Service Technician, Samsung. The non-appearance of the opposite parties 1 & 2 before the Forum and not filing version and also taking into account the fact of non reply of legal notice sent by the complainant to them reveals that the opposite party No.1 & 2 behaved indifferently towards the subject matter. Ext.A1 undoubtedly makes it clear that the washing machine was purchased from opposite party No.2. Moreover, complainant also sent notice but no reply was sent by them. The indifferent attitude of the opposite party 1 & 2 has also reflected from their absence before the Forum. Opposite parties have the legal obligation to sent reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant. In the light of these facts there is no need to disbelieve the complainant and thus Forum is under the impression that, opposite party 2 by their employees taken away the board of the washing machine for rectifying the defects from the service centre of the opposite party 2. If it was not taken by him he could have very well reply the legal notice and so also he could have appear before the Forum and file version accordingly. Hence it can only be assumed that the board of washing machine is with opposite party 2 for rectifying the defects. Since it has taken by opposite party 2 they have the liability to repair the alleged washing machine to complainant. Hence we are of opinion that opposite party 2 is liable to rectify the defect of washing machine or otherwise should pay ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant is also entitled for an amount of ` 1000 towards the cost of his litigation but opposite party No.2 can adjust this amount towards the repair charge. It is also clear that complainant could not produce any material piece of evidence to convince the Forum that there was manufacturing defect for the washing machine. He has not even attempted to have an expert opinion to prove the aspect of manufacturing defect. Hence any liability cannot be casted upon opposite party No.1. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party No.2 to rectify the defect of the washing machine No.K-000522 within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the payment. Complainant is also entitled for ` 1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost this litigation which the opposite party No.2 allowed to adjust the amount towards the expense of the repair. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of one month. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Original bill dated 02.05.2007. A2. Copy of lawyer notice dated 06.08.2010 A3. Postal receipt dated 13.08.2010. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for the complainant Nil Witness examined for opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
