IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 110/2012 (Filed on 18.06.2012)
Between:
Subaida Beevi. V,
Varuna, Pettah,
Pathanamthitta,
Kerala – 689 645. …. Complainant
And:
1. M/s. Attinkara Electronics,
College Road,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan)
2. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
(Authorised Service Centre –
M.G. Care Centre),
Opp. Catholicate College,
Makkamkunnu.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta. …. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that she had purchased an L.G. Washing Machine on 16.09.2008 from the 1st opposite party. The said machine was sold with a 10 year extra warranty over and above the normal 2 year warranty as a special offer on the occasion of Onam with a noting of “10 year extra warranty” on the warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party. The said machine became unserviceable on 28.05.2012 and it was intimated to the 2nd opposite party by calling in their toll free number. Then the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that the machine is not covered under warranty and cannot be repaired free of charge. Then the complainant informed about the additional 10 year warranty given by the 1st opposite party. But the 2nd opposite party stated that they are not liable for the additional 10 year warranty given by the 1st opposite party and advised the complainant to contact the 1st opposite party. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party to get the machine repaired under warranty. But they declined to do so and stated that they cannot honour the endorsement over the warranty and that was expired. Thereafter the husband of the complainant visited the 2nd opposite party personally but they reiterated their inability to repair the machine free of charge. They also given a copy of the E-mail from their head office regarding the matter, saying their inability to honour the warranty. The said machine was purchased on the basis of the additional warranty. But the opposite parties failed to honour the warranty offered by them, which is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of a total amount of ` 1 lakh from the opposite parties under various heads.
3. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions:- They admitted the sale of the washing machine to the complainant on 16.09.2008. The allegation of the complainant that they have given an additional 10 year warranty is false and hence denied. They have never given such a warranty. The alleged endorsement over the warranty card is a fabrication made by the complainant for the purpose of this case. They have offered only 2 year warranty and in case any additional warranty is given for any products, the company will give separate additional warranty cards to the customers. On 30.01.2012 the 1st opposite party had repaired certain complaints of the washing machine and the complainant had paid the charges which itself shows that there is no additional warranty. The 1st opposite party is not aware of the transactions of the complainant with the 2nd opposite party. There is no extra warranty to the said machine and the complainant is not entitled to claim for 12 year warranty. The complainant has not sustained any loss or other inconveniences due to the acts of the 1st opposite party. The washing machine is working to the knowledge of the 1st opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint and the prayers are not allowable and the 1st opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. With the above contentions, 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The 2nd opposite party is exparte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that the 1st opposite party sold a washing machine to the complainant on 16.09.2008 for ` 19,750 with an additional warranty for 10 years over and above the normal 2 year warranty by making an endorsement “10 year extra warranty” over the warranty card. Accordingly, the complainant’s washing machine has a warranty up to 17.09.2020. But the complaints of the washing machine occurred on 28.05.2012 was not rectified by the opposite parties in spite of the warranty. The opposite parties also denied the extra warranty offered by them and told the complainant that the complaints can be rectified on payment by the complainant. According to the complainant, the above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant’s husband, as the authorized agent of the complainant, adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 4 documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the authorization executed by the complainant in favour of PW1. Ext.A2 is the retail invoice No.1945 dated 16.09.2008 issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant showing the sale of the washing machine. Ext.A3 is the warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A3(a) is that particular portion where the endorsement of 10 year extra warranty made by the 1st opposite party in Ext.A3 warranty card. Ext.A4 is the copy of e.mail copy issued by the 2nd opposite party in this connection received by them from their head office.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the 1st opposite party is that they have never offered any extra warranty and the endorsement about the extra warranty seen in the warranty card is a fabrication made by the complainant and they have offered only 2 year warranty which is already been expired and hence they are not liable to repair the machine free of cost. Moreover, the complainant obtained the services of the 2nd opposite party on 30.01.2012 for repairing the complaints of the washing machine by paying the charges, which itself shows that the complaint is aware of the real fact that there is no extra warranty to the machine.
10. Though the 1st opposite party raised the above contentions, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. But they have cross-examined PW1 on the basis of their contentions.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the sale and purchase of the washing machine. The only dispute is with regard to the extra warranty offer. According to the complainant, the 1st opposite party offered an additional extra warranty for 10 years to the washing machine at the time of its purchase by making an endorsement to that effect on the original warranty card and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. At the same time, the contention of the opposite party is that they never made such an offer or such an endorsement as claimed by the complainant and hence they are not liable to the complainant. But on a perusal of Exts. A3 and A3(a), there is an endorsement to the effect that there is 10 year extra warranty for the product. The nature and appearance of the said endorsement in Ext. A3 shows that the said endorsement was made by the first opposite party. Moreover, the first opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that the said endorsement is a fabricated endorsement though they have raised such a contention. Thus, we find that the said endorsement is made by the first opposite party at the time of selling the product to the complainant. So the first opposite party is not entitled to disown their own endorsement and hence the first opposite party is liable to undertake the responsibility of their undertaking. The other contention of the first opposite party is that the complainant had availed the service of the opposite parties on payment after the expiry of 2 years from the date of purchase which itself shows the complainant’s disentitlement for the extra warranty is also not sustainable as there is no evidence to show that the said service was obtained for any warranteed work or not. In the circumstances, we find that the complainant is entitled to get the warranty benefits as per the extra warranty offered by the first opposite party and hence the denial of the warranty benefits to the complainant by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service. Therefore, this complaint is allowable against the first opposite party as the extra warranty was given by the first opposite party and not by the second opposite party.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the first opposite party is directed to rectify the complaints of the washing machine free of cost through their authorized service center along with compensation of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) and cost of ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant. This order shall be complied within 7 days from the date of receipt of the washing machine by the first opposite party from the complainant. The complainant is also directed to hand over the washing machine to the first opposite party within 7 days from the date receipt of this order by obtaining proper acknowledgment from the first opposite party.
13. In the event of non-compliance of this order by the first opposite party, the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the washing machine and the compensation and cost ordered herein above with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount from the first opposite party.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of October, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Harris. V. Hydroose.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Authorization executed by the complainant in favour of
PW1.
A2 : Retail invoice No.1945 dated 16.09.2008 issued by the
1st opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party.
A3(a): The relevant portion in Ext.A3 warranty card.
A4 : Copy of E-mail copy issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Subaida Beevi. V, Varuna, Pettah,
Pathanamthitta - 689 645.
(2) M/s. Attinkara Electronics, College Road,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,(Authorised Service
Centre M.G. Care Centre), Opp. Catholicate College,
Makkamkunnu.P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
