By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The complainant had purchased a Kenstar Washing machine from the first opposite party on 9-4-05 for an amount of Rs12000/-. Second opposite party is the manufacturer of the machine. Opposite party had offered two years warranty for the machine. Within three weeks of purchase the machine became defective. There was leakage of water from the machine. The matter was reported to the first opposite party the dealer, on 15-7-05. The first opposite party’s technician attempted to repair the machine. The very same problem persisted. Again the complainant informed the opposite party and there were three more occasions when the opposite party’s technicians tried to repair the defects. On 10-9-05 complainant contacted the first opposite party and first opposite party assured to replace the machine. The first opposite party replaced the machine claiming to be a brand new one. But the complainant noticed that the same old machine was delivered by the first opposite party under the pretext of new one. Opposite party-1 had sold the machine by accepting unfair trade practice and fraudless methods. The petitioner had suffered due to the unfair trade practice and deficient service of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is filed to get back the cost of the machine along with compensation. Opposite party-1 filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party-1 admits the fact that the complainant had purchased a washing machine from the first opposite party. Complainant had complained about certain defects in the machine. Even though there was no defect in the washing machine opposite party-1 had replaced the old machine with a new one. Complainant had repeatedly complained the defects. Opposite party had sent their technicians to inspect and repair if there were any defects. But there was no defect noticed in the machine. Opposite party-1 is denying the averment by the complainant that they had replaced the old machine substituting old one and putting on a new number place. The technician had repaired and demonstrated the function of the machine which was satisfied by the complainant. Opposite party-1 had not done any unfair trade practice and there was no deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. Hence opposite party-1 prays to dismiss the complaint. Opposite party-2 also filed a version denying the averments except those that are specifically admitted. Opposite party-2 submits that the complainant had reported the defects in the washing machine. As a gesture of good relations a new machine was replaced. Opposite party-2 denies the allegation that the same old machine was again delivered by the first opposite party under pretext of a new one. The problems stated by the complainant are due to improper and negligent use of the machine. As there was no deficiency on the part of opposite parties, opposite party-2 prays to dismiss the complaint. Opposite party-3 was subsequently impleaded and filed a version submitting that the complaint does not contain any allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against opposite party-3. Opposite party-3 is the authorized service company for opposite party-2 which was incorporated in the year 2007 only. There is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party-3. Opposite party-3 has not rendered any service to the complainant. The complainant has not given any consideration to opposite party-3. The complainant is not entitled to seek any sought of relief from opposite party-3. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost to opposite party-3. The points for consideration is (1) whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? (2) If so what is the amount? The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A13 were marked on complainant’s side. No evidence adduced by the opposite parties. Point No.1: The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a washing machine from the first opposite party on 9-4-05 for an amount of Rs.12000/- the second opposite party is manufacturer of the washing machine. Within weeks of purchase of the machine, the machine started showing the defects. There was leakage. So the complainant informed the opposite parties. First opposite party sent their technician to repair the machine. Even though the technicians had attempted to repair the washing machine several times the defects continued. Hence opposite party-1 had replaced the washing machine. According to the complainant the replaced machine also had the same defects. The complainant had doubts regarding the replaced machine. When the complainant checked the washing machine he came to understand that it was the same old machine but the opposite party had changed the number plate. Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, the complainant had filed the case before the Forum. Opposite party-1 and 2 had filed the version denying the allegations. Opposite party-1 and 2 had filed the version denying the allegations. Opposite party-2 had filed an I.A. 103/09 to implead Tekcare India Private Limited as O.P.3 stating that opposite party-2 has been merged with Tekcare India Private Limited from December 2007 onwards. I.A. was heard and allowed. As a result opposite party-3 was impleaded as supplementary opposite party. An expert had filed a report which is marked as Ext.A13. In Ext.A13 it is clearly mentioned that there were certain defects to the washing machine –“ Point No.1: while operating the machine had odd sound. (2) There was water leakage seen in the machine while usage. (3) Washing machine seems to be older than stated by the opposite party (4) On inspection metal assembling defects and defects in the bearing were noted.” Opposite parties has not tried to challenge Ext.A13. the counsel for the complainant argued that not challenging the report of the expert showing the defects in the machine itself proves that the machine was defective. Opposite parties have not taken any steps to counter the statements in Ext.A13. Ext.A2 to A6 are service call slips by the service centers of opposite party-2. Ext.A2 to A6 shows that the washing machine was regularly under repair from 12-4-05. A perusal of the documents and Ext.A13 in particular go to show that the washing machine purchased by the complainant was defective. Opposite parties-1 and 2 were deficient in their service. As opposite parties have not done to redress the grievance of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought in the petition. Point No.1 is thus proved. Point No.2: Opposite party-1 is the dealer and opposite party-2 is the manufacturer of the washing machine. The petition was filed on 10-3-06. During this period Oppositeparty-3 was not in the picture. Opposite party-3 became the service provider only during 2007. Opposite party-3 has not rendered any service to the complainant and has not received any consideration from the complainant. We are of the opinion that opposite party-1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the washing machine to the complainant. Hence opposite party-1 and 2 are directed to return back Rs.12000/- the cost of the washing machine to the complainant. In the result the petition is allowed and opposite parties-1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.12000/- the cost of the washing machine to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On paying the amount the opposite party can take back the washing machine from the complainant. Pronounced in the open court this the 29th day of April 2010. SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1. Cash bill dt. 9-4-05 issued by O .P1 to the complainant. A2. Service Call slip dt. 12-4-05 issued by Angel Electronics, Kenstar. A3. Service Call slip dt. 15-7-05 issued by Angel Electronics, Kenstar. A4. Service Call slip dt. 30-8-05 A5. Service Call slip dt. 2-9-05 A6. Service Call slip dt. 25-9-05 A7. Service Call slip dt. 1-10-05 A8. Certificate of warranty. A9. Photocopy of Regd. Notice dt. 15-11-05 with acknowledgment. A10. Photocopy of Reply notice dt. 7-12-05. A11. Photocopy of Regd. Notice dt. 12-1-05. A12. Reply notice dt. 1-2-06. A13. Report dt. 8-8-08 submitted by Kripa Refrigeration. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil Witness examined for the complainant: PW1. Satheesan.K.K. (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party. None Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
| | HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,, Member | HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,, PRESIDENT | HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,, Member | | 
