IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C.N0.27/2014 (Filed on 20.02.2014)
Between:
Subaida Beevi. V,
Varuna, Pettah,
Pathanamthitta.
Pin - 689 645. …. Complainant.
And:
M/s. Attinkara Electronics,
College Road,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) …. Opposite party.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant had purchase an LG Washing Machine from the opposite party on 16-09-2008 with 10 years additional warranty over and above the normal two years warranty. The applicability of the 10 years additional warranty given by the opposite party was considered by this Hon’ble Forum in C.C.No.110/2012 filed by the complainant against the opposite party in connection with a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party on a previous occasion.
3. While so, the said washing machine became unserviceable on 31/12/2013 and the matter was reported to the opposite party verbally and in writing on the strength of the extend warranty. But they refused to repair the complaint in spite of the warranty and despite the order of the Hon’ble Consumer Forum in C.C.No.110/2012. The above said Act of the opposite party, the complainant and her family was put to lot of mental and physical hardships. So the complainant was forced to get the machine repaired at her cost through the authorized service centre of the manufacturer by paying Rs.3,618/-. The above said Act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and is a willful contempt of the previous order of this Forum, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and a sum of Rs.40,000/- for physical hardship along with Rs.3,618/- the repairing charges paid to the service centre and Rs.6,382/- towards the cost of this petition and for an order directing the opposite party to honour the warranty up to 17-09-2020.
4. Opposite party filed their version with the following main contentions: According to the opposite party, the allegation in respect of manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is a necessary party to this proceedings. But the manufacturer is not impleaded in this case. Therefore this complaint is not maintainable for non- joinder of necessary parties. That apart, the said washing machine was repaired by the complainant herself on 30-01-2012 by paying the charges. So it is clear that she is aware of the expiry of the warranty and hence she is estopped from claiming warranty benefits. Actually the warranty of the washing machine was expired on 15-09-2010. The liability of warranty is vested with the manufacturer and the answering opposite party is only a dealer and has no discretionary powers in respect of warranty. The allegation that the opposite party had given additional warranty is false. Opposite party admitted the filing of C.C.110/2012 and the order of this Forum in that case and opposite party had complied the said order also. The washing machine in question has no valid warranty and hence the opposite party has no liability to rectify the defects if any under the warranty conditions. Thus the opposite party has not committed to any deficiency in service as alleged by the complaint and the complaint is trying to exploit the opposite party by a fabricated document showing external warranty. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
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 depositions of PW1, DW1 and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 and B2. After closure of evidence both sides went heard.
7. The Point :- Complainant’s case is that she had purchased a washing machine from the opposite party on 16-09-2008 with 10 years additional warranty over and above the normal warranty of two years. The said washing machine became unserviceable on 31-12-2013. But the opposite party refused to repair the washing machine by saying that the warranty was already expired on 15-09-2010 as the warranty was only for two years. According to the complainant as per the extended warranty given by the opposite party, the warranty will be expired only on 17-09-2020 and as such the warranty given by the opposite party is still in force. Moreover in an earlier proceedings of this Forum filed by the complainant against the opposite parties in respect of the warranty of the same washing machine was considered by this Forum in C.C.110/2012 and this Forum declared that the washing machine in question had an additional warranty for 10 years. So the non repair of the washing machine under warranty provisions by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the said act is also a contempt against the order of this Forum. Because of the above said deficiency in service, the complainant was forced to repair the washing machine through the authorized service center by paying Rs.3,618/-. Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant’s husband being the authorized representative adduced oral evidence as PW1. He also produced four documents which are marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the authorization executed by the complainant in favour of PW1. Ext A2 is the certified copy of retail invoice dated 16-09-2008 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant showing the sale of the Washing Machine. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of the warranty card in respect of the Washing Machine in question. Ext.A4 is the retail invoice dated 06-01-2014 issued by the authorized service center of LG Electronics in respect of the repair in question.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the warranty of the complainant’s Washing Machine was expired on 15-09-2010 as the warranty was only for two years. They have not issued any additional warranty as claimed by the complainant. The entry regarding additional warranty is a fabrication made by the complainant for the purpose of this case. Subsequent to the expiry of the warranty, the complainant had repaired the Washing Machine twice at the authorized service center by paying the charges, which itself shows that she is aware of the fact that the warranty has already been expired. Moreover the earlier order of this Forum in C.C.110/2012 was complied by the opposite party for maintaining the relationship with customer and such an order was passed by this Forum for the reason that the opposite party has not adduced evidence in the proceedings. Moreover, the warranty does not means that every defects could be rectified free of cost. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty, warranty is given only for the manufacturing defects for a particular period and the warranty does not covers the complaints that are caused not due to manufacturing defects and the complaint’s occurred beyond the control of the manufacturer such as mishandling, lightening etc. The complainant has not proved that the disputed complaint is a manufacturing defect. Thus they argued for dismissing the complaint as they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
10. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced by him are marked as Ext.B1 and B2. B1 and B2 are the copies of 2 retail invoices dated 03-02-2012 and 19-06-2012 issued by the authorized service center of the manufacturer in the name of the complainant showing the repairs and its payments. Apart from the above evidence, one witness was also examined for the opposite party as DW2.
11. On the basis of the available materials on record, it is seen that the complainant had purchased a Washing Machine from the first opposite party on 16-09-2008. As per the warranty card the warranty is shown as 24 months. Apart from the above said 2 years warranty printed in the warranty card, there is an endorsement made by using a pen showing 10 years extra warranty. The complainant is relying on this endorsement and further claims that this Forum was already considered the said extra warranty in another case between the same parties. But the same is not proved by the complainant by producing the certified copy of the order in the said complaint. But the opposite party has not raised any series objection against above said contention of the complainant regarding the earlier order of this Forum. Therefore it can be presumed that their may be an extended warranty as claimed by the complainant. In the circumstances, the pertinent question to be considered is whether the disputed repair is covered by the warranty. The contention of the complaint is that since the extra warranty is in force, opposite party is liable to repair the washing machine free of cost. But the contention of the opposite party is that the washing machine was purchased in the year 2008 and the alleged complaint occurred in the year 2013 and the reported complaint is not a manufacturing defect. So there is no question of warranty and hence they are not liable to repair the washing machine free of cost.
12. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that the present complaint occurred is due to the manufacturing defect of the washing machine. But the complainant’s argument is that the defect in question is a manufacturing defect and it is evident from the deposition of DW1 and DW2. But on a perusal of the deposition of DW1 and DW2, we did not find any statements in their deposition that the present defect is a manufacturing defect. Since the allegation is manufacturing defect, it is the duty of the complainant to prove the said allegation with cogent evidence. All complaints cannot be considered as manufacturing defects. Complaints may occur either due to manufacturing defects or due to mishandling or due to over voltage, and lightening etc. Defects due to mishandling lighting etc. are not covered under warranty conditions. The cause of the defect is the material aspect in considering this type of cases. Duration of warranty is relevant only when the alleged complaint of the equipment is caused due to manufacturing defect and if so, it is covered under warranty condition. In this case, even if the warranty will expire only on 17-09-2020, the alleged complaint of the washing machine is not proved with evidence that it happened due to manufacturing defects. Therefore, we find any deficiency in service against the opposite party. Hence this complaint is found, not allowable.
13. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of October, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Haris. V. Hydroose
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Authorization executed by the complainant in
favour of PW1.
A2 : Photocopy of retail invoice dated 16-09-2008 issued by
the opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Photocopy of the warranty card.
A4 : Retail invoice dated 06-01-2014 issued by the
authorized service center of LG Electronics.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : Navas. S
DW2 : Mathew George
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 & B2 : Photocopies of 2 retail invoices dated 03-02-2012
and 19-06-2012.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Subaida Beevi. V, Varuna, Pettah,
Pathanamthitta, Pin - 689 645. (2) M/s. Attinkara Electronics, College Road,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
