BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 17/10/2012

Date of Order : 13/11/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

 

C.C. No. 652/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

1. The facts leading to this complaint are as follows :-

The complainant a housewife had purchased a washing machine valued Rs. 23,250/- on 18-07-2012. The washing machine purchased went out of order on 28-09-2012 ie. within 2 months of its purchase. A complaint was registered with the opposite parties and the service officials of the 1^st opposite party visited the place of the complainant to rectify the defect, if any of the washing machine. On inspection, it was identified that the PCB connected to the washing machine was damaged by rats. The service officials accordingly replaced the PCB components and collected Rs. 6,460/- towards the value of the replaced PCB components. The complainant approached this Forum seeking refund of the above amount on the ground that failure to provide sufficient safety systems is a manufacturing defect. The complainant also claimed compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for inconvenience, hardship and mental agony suffered. This complaint hence.

2. The 1^st opposite party on the other hand submitted its version, wherein it is stated that the warranty provided by the manufacturers does not cover similar damages to the product and their service official had not collected any service charges from the complainant, that they had collected only the value of the replaced PCB components that the warranty provided no free replacement of parts, that all possible precautions to prevent damages by insects and animals had taken by the manufacturers, that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and regretted the inconvenience caused to the complainant.

3. The 2^nd opposite party was served with notice, but they chose to remain absent. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on her side. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the 1^st opposite party. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

4. The only question to be decided in the case is whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 6,460/- paid during the warranty period towards costs of PCB components replaced or not?

5. The washing machine purchased by the complainant went out of order within two months of its purchase. On inspecting the machine, it was identified by the service officials that Display PCB and Main PCB connected to the washing machine were damaged by rats. The 1^st opposite party contended that warranty does not cover similar damages. The complainant on the other hand argued that it is the duty of the 1^st opposite party to provide sufficient protective cover to withstand attack by rats or similar type of animals and that the failure to provide sufficient safety system is a manufacturing defect.

6. The warranty card shows that the warranty is void if,

1. the set is not operated according to instructions given in the Operating Instructions Booklet.

2. Defects are caused by improper or reckless use, which shall be determined by company personnel.

3. Any repair work is carried out by persons other than authorised company personnel.

4. Defects are caused due to beyond control like lightning, abnormal voltage, acts of god or while in transit to service centre or purchasers residence.

5. The warranty is not valid in case the serial number is deleted, defected or altered.

6. Damage to the product or any part/s due to transportation or shifting is not covered by warranty.

7. The warranty will automatically terminate on the expiry of warranty period of 24 months, even if the washing machine may not be in use for any time during the warranty period for any reason.

7. The above conditions of warranty do not attract to the facts of the case in hand. Though at the relevant time, the complainant was holding a valid warranty. Therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled to free replacement of PCB components also for compensation for the inconvenience caused and mental agony suffered. Further, the manufacturers failed to provide sufficient safety system (to prevent attack by rates) in the product manufactured by them.

8. In the circumstances, we direct that the 1^st opposite party shall refund Rs. 6,460/- along with interest at the rate of 12 p.a. to the complainant. We also direct that the 1^st opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience caused and towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of November 2013.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant’s Exhibits :-

Opposite party’s Exhibits :: Nil

=========