D.O.F:02/07/2020
D.O.O:30/05/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.68/2020
Dated this, the 30th day of May 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Suresh K.B, aged 38 years,
S/o Pundalika,
R/at Nithyanandan Nilaya, : Complainant
Badibagilu, Amye Road,
Nullipady,
Kasaragod Taluk &Dist- 671121
(Advs. Navyasree & Sadananda Kamath.K)
And
- M/s Micro Corpus,
City Gate Building,
Old Press Club Junction,
Kasaragod- 671121: Opposite Parties
- Whirlpool of India Limited,
Thirubhuvanai Village,
Puducherry, Tamil Nadu- 605107
(Advs. K.S. Arundas & Annamma John.V)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The Complainant filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Case of the Complainant is that Complainant purchased a washing machine from the shop of Opposite Party No.1 on 11/07/2019 by paying Rs.15,000/-. Even during its installation and demo it is noticed that washing machine leaks on the basement. Matter reported to the dealer. Dealer replied that it is a manufacturing defect and non-curable. On 29/06/2020 technician came and removed a fiber plate, kept there open and stated that some more parts are needed and assured his arrival on the next day. No repair no service later. Machine still not working and he needs replacement and compensation. The complainant visited several times but Opposite Party demands additional payment which is illegal and alleges deficiency in service. Therefore claimed replacement and compensation.
Opposite Party No.1 filed statement denying allegation. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service in their services, they have done service as and when required and informed company in time.
The Opposite Party No.2 admitted that Complainant purchased the washing machine Opposite Party NO.2 also admitted that there was water leakage issue while installation. The issue is resolved the very next day. Complaint received on 29/06/2020 relating to leakage. It is found there was water leakage from the drain hose from the washing machine due to rat bite. They said same cannot be repaired under Warranty. The demand by Complainant is not included in the warranty so once damage is cause by radents / insects, fire, flood or other acts of god and therefore no justification claiming deficiency in service or for compensation.
No oral evidence from both parties. The Complainant filed Ext.A1 and C1. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill, Ext.C1 expert report. Ext.B1 is Customer service bill and Ext.B2 is Warranty terms.
Considering the rival claims the following points arise for consideration-
- Whether the water leakage of washing machine is covered by warranty or it is excluded as in act of god?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Parties?
- Whether there is any manufacturing defects to the product?
- Whether complainant is entitled for replacement or any compensation. So far what reliefs?
The Complainant applied for expert opinion related to manufacturing defects. Expert filed his report marked as Ext.C1. The report shows there was leakage in the basement washing machine. Report further shows that it is beyond repair, its gear box rusted, wires broken, it is in un repairable condition and of no use but at the same time there is no manufacturing defects. Machine is purchased in 2019, inspection in 2022 after two years. Opposite Party No.2 refused to replace the machine since there is no manufacturing defect. It is true that expert report shows that there is no manufacturing defect. But at the same time report shows that machine is beyond repair. Its gear box rusted. Wires are broken. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 did not take any steps to rectify the defect in the machine is not working from the very beginning itself and it is of no use.Though Opposite Party No.2 states rat bite and act of god no mention about rat bite of wire in the expert report. So inevitable conclusion is that a washing machine purchased in 2019 in its very installation leakage is found on its basement could not repaired or serviced even after four year, it is beyond repair and finally citing it is not covered by warranty because it is beyond repair and without any justification. There is no meaning to keep a washing machine in any house without being used for any reason. It is admitted that it is of no use, not due to any act on the part of Complainant. Here no mention about rat bites in the expert report. In these circumstances there is no other alternative but to order replacement with new washing machine or pay its price to complainant. There is deficiency in service of both Opposite Party No.1 and 2 as well. The complainant is also entitled for compensation.
The Opposite Party No.1 is also responsible for his failure to provide service to the machine in time and inform the manufacturer to resolve the problem faced by consumer on purchase of machine unable to use it for intended purpose. Commission is of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled for compensation and Rs.10,000/- is allowed as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite Party No.2 is directed to provide a new washing machine of same brand same price without collecting any amount from Complainant or in the alternative Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) being price of the washing machine and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) for cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Tax Invoice dated 11/06/2019
C1: Expert Report
B1: Customer service record card
B2: Warranty terms
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
