BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 139/2007

Dated: 15..01..2010

Complainant:

P.N. Surendran, I.F.S (Rtd), H.No.317, Gandhi Nagar, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Vazhuthacaud R. Narndran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s. L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd., 221, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III, New Delhi – 110 020.

2. M/s. L.G. Electronics, Vasudeva Building, 40/1270, T.D Road, Ernakulam – 682 011.

3. M/s. United Enterprises, Vazhuthacaud, thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Michael Kutty Mathew)

This O.P having been heard on 13..01..2010, the Forum on 15..01..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The complainant in this case is a Retired IFS Officer. He purchased a Washing Machine of model WD 800 7 C1 from the 3^rd opposite party on 21/8/2003 for Rs.21,500/-. He purchased the Washing Machine with the financial assistance from M/s. City Finance, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant states that he has purchased the Washing Machine fully believing its efficiency, durability and after service benefits as assured by the 3^rd opposite party at the time of purchase. But from the very beginning of the dae of purchase the Washing machine started showing troubles. The working condition of the Washing Machine is not good as its cleaning is not perfect. The complainant informed the matter to the authorised dealer – the 3^rd opposite party and some parts were replaced. But even after the repair the defect was not rectified. Thereafter the complainant went there, there was no response from the 3^rd opposite party, complainant informed the matter to the Service Centre and the machine was taken to the Service Centre in June 2006. But till date the same has not be returned to the complainant. The complainant sent lawyer's notice on 23/05/2005 to the opposite parties. But they have not taken any steps to replace the defective machine with a brand new one or to refund the purchase price Rs.21,500/-. As per the complainant, the defects in the Washing machine cannot be rectified, since the same is with serious manufacturing defect. There is serious deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant states that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

2. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties accepted the notice from this Forum and they filed Vakkalath and submitted before this Forum that they are ready to settle the matter. But thereafter they did not appear before this Forum to settle the case or contest the same. Hence the opposite parties remain ex-parte.

3. Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

4. Points (i) & (ii) : The complainant in this case has filed proof affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced 6 documents. The documents are marked as Exts. P1 to P6. Ext. P1 is the warranty card. Ext. P2 is the job sheet dated 17/10/2006. Ext. P3 is the copy of letter dated 18/2/2005 with acknowledgment card, statement from M/s. City Finance. Ext. P4 is the copy of lawyer's notice dated 23/5/2005. Ext. P5 is the copy of postal receipts with acknowledgment cards. The case is for passing an order directing the opposite parties to refund the purchase price of Rs.21,500/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase ie. 21/8/2003 after accepting the defective Washing machine and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience caused, financial loss suffered by the complainant. To prove his case the complainant has produced the above mentioned documents. The complainant did not produce the purchase bill to show the price of the Washing Machine. As per Ext. P3 document issued by the City Finance, we can see that complainant has taken a sum of Rs.40,000/- as loan for purchasing a Washing machine. From Ext. P2 job sheet we can see that the Washing machine was given for repair to the Hi-Tech Electronics, the authorised Service Centre of the opposite parties on 17/10/2006. The complainant states that still the Washing machine is there. The complainant has purchased the said Washing machine for his day to day household use. But quiet contrary to the expectations of the complainant, from the very beginning of the date of the purchase the machine started showing troubles. The complainant purchased the Washing machine with his hard earned money. But the same became useless due to its manufacturing defects. The defects in the Washing machine cannot be rectified since the same is having manufacturing defect. These contentions of the complaint has not been challenged by the opposite parties. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged, hence there is no need for expert opinion to decide the case. The opposite parties had sufficient time to contest the case, but they did not turn up to contest the same. Hence from the evidences adduced by the complainant we are allowing the complaint.

In the result, the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant because the complainant has used the Washing machine till 17/10/2006, hence Rs. 6,500/- is deducted from the price of the Washing machine towards depreciation. The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties shall also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 9% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount. On compliance of the above order, the opposite parties shall take the defective Washing machine.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of January, 2010.

BEENA KUMARI. A.,

MEMBER.

G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

S.K.SREELA, MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No.139/2007

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : P.N. Surendran

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photocopy of warranty card

P2 : " job sheet dated 17/10/2006

P3 : " letter and account repayment statement from City Finance dated 18/2/2005.

P4 : " advocate notice dated 23/5/2002

P5 : " postal receipts and acknowledgment cards.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT