BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 79/2011 Filed on 19.03.2011
Dated : 31.08.2011
Complainant :
Dr. Mohandas. B, T.C. No. 24/1962, Minchin Road, Vazhuthacaud, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-14.
(By adv. D.R. Rajesh)
Opposite parties :
M/s Samsung Electronics Pvt Ltd., 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Gurgaon 122 009, Haryana, India.
The Proprietor, United Radio & Electricals, Head Office, T.C No. 25/2432, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.
This O.P having been heard on 23.08.2011, the Forum on 31.08.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a retired Civil Surgeon. The complainant had purchased a Samsung Top Loading Automatic washing machine manufactured by Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd on 24.08.2010 from the 2nd opposite party as per invoice No. 1487 dated 24.08.2010 for a price of Rs. 9,500/-. The complainant was using the washing machine for his household purpose, but on 11.12.2010, i.e hardly after three months from the date of its purchase, the washing machine stopped functioning when it was switched on. On the next working day i.e; on 13.12.2010, the complainant informed the matter to the 2nd opposite party and according to their instruction a complaint was registered. Since there was no response to the complaint preferred by the complainant the complainant again called the customer care personnel of the 1st opposite party and informed the matter. The complainant was told that they will inform the matter to the higher authorities and they will contact the complainant soon. However nobody contacted the complainant and there was no response also. Subsequently the complainant again contacted the 2nd opposite party and informed them about the matter. While so on 21.12.2010 one service personnel of the 1st opposite party came to the complainant's residence and inspected the washing machine. After inspecting the washing machine he informed the complainant that the control panel board of the washing machine is defective and told the complainant to get a new washing machine as replacement. Even though the complainant had requested the opposite parties to replace the defective washing machine with a fault free one, they had shown a deaf ear to his request. The complainant and his wife are old aged persons and they were put to much hardship and difficulties due to the non-functioning of the washing machine. The complainant had purchased the washing machine since he was not able to wash cloths manually. Since the opposite parties did not turn up either for replacing or for rectifying the machine, the complainant was constrained to purchase a new washing machine. Due to the inaction and irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties the complainant had undergone much hardship, mental pain and sufferings. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The washing machine purchased by the complainant was having manufacturing defect and as such the opposite parties are bound and liable to replace the machine with a fault free one since the defect has occurred during the subsistence of the warranty period. But the complainant was constrained to purchase a new washing machine of a different company due to the recalcitrant attitude of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The opposite parties in spite of acceptance of notice from the Forum failed to appear before the Forum or file their version. Hence they were set ex-parte.
Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P8. Complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. To prove the pleadings in the complaint, the washing machine in dispute has been examined by an expert commissioner whose report has been marked as Ext. C1.
The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed.
The point:- The retail invoice dated 24.08.2010 which has been marked as Ext. P1 reveals the purchase of one Samsung washing machine by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs. 9,500/-. As per the warranty card which has been marked as Ext. P2, the washing machine has a warranty for a period of 24 months, wherein outer steel casing and top lid are not covered under warranty. According to the complainant, the washing machine stopped functioning on 11.12.2010 which is hardly 3 months from the date of its purchase. Complainant has further pleaded that the complaint was informed to the 2nd opposite party and as instructed a complaint was registered in the Toll free number given by them on 13.12.2010 itself. The complaint was registered with BP No. 8411592445 dated 13.12.2010. Accordingly an assurance was given to the complainant that the service personnel will be calling him within two hours and that he will fix an appointment at a time suitable for the complainant and will take corrective steps. Subsequently an SMS was also sent to the complainant's mobile phone confirming the registration of the complaint. However after waiting for the whole day, since there was no response, the complainant was constrained to send an e-mail during the night hours about the non-functioning of the washing machine. Subsequently the complainant again contacted the 2nd opposite party and informed them about the matter. While so on 21.12.2010 one service personnel of the 1st opposite party came to the complainant's residence and inspected the washing machine. After inspecting the washing machine he informed the complainant that the control panel board of the washing machine is defective and told the complainant to get a new washing machine as replacement.
It has been pleaded by the complainant that the washing machine supplied to him suffers from manufacturing defect. The opposite parties have not challenged any of the allegations levelled against them. As per Ext. C1, the washing machine of the complainant is completely dead. Commissioner reports that “the Electronic Control Board was found non-functional and dead even though power was available at the power input pins of the board. The Electronic Control Board is potted and no field level servicing is possible. In Potting process, after assembling all components, a potting material in the form of a viscous fluid is poured over the board and the components, so that they are completely immersed in the potting liquid. Then, as the potting liquid 'cures', it solidifies and forms a protective cover over the components, safeguarding them from moisture, dust and other harmful materials. It also makes component level servicing impracticable in the field (premises of the customer). Therefore if any problem is identified with the Control Board, it is simply replaced by pulling it out and plugging in a new or working board. The defective boards are then sent back to factories or super servicing centres for repair, fault evaluation (to evaluate if any defect in the design or the construction of the board had caused, triggered or accelerated its failure). In this particular case, as the Control Board itself was disfunctional and as the machine was completely dead, no further evaluation or testing of the machine was possible. This is akin to saying that tests like fuel consumption, braking performance, steering, shock absorber, rattling, riding comfort and performance of a/c cannot be tested in a car with dead engine. In addition to the problem with Electronic control Unit, there could be other problems too. But detection of such defects is possible only after a fully functional control Board has been installed in the unit. The Electronic Control Unit is an inexpensive, quick and sure procedure to identify and localise the real cause for malfunction. The refusal of the opposite party to replace the Control Board could be due to the unavailability of Electronic Control Board. The reason for this could be that the unit sold to the complainant was an out-dated one, the production of which was discontinued”. As there is no denial on the part of the opposite parties, the pleadings in the complaint stands admitted. From the evidence on record and as per Ext. C1, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint. The desire of a new buyer has been disappointed by the performance of the washing machine. From the very beginning of its purchase, the main duty of the complainant was to inform the opposite parties regarding the defects and repairing of the washing machine. The opposite parties have failed to perform their duties which leads us to conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant has produced Ext. P8 to show that he has purchased a new washing machine. In the above circumstance we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the washing machine. There is no doubt that the complainant has been made to suffer due to the act of the opposite parties for which he has to be compensated.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall refund Rs. 9,500/- with 9% interest from 19.03.2011, the date of complaint, along with a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of receipt of the order.
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 31st day of August 2011.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 79/2011
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Original retail invoice cash/credit dated 24.08.2010
P2 - Original tips for installation.
P3 - Copy of the letter dated 03.01.2011 issued by the complainant.
P4 - Notice returned unserved.
P5 - Copy of letter dated 03.01.2011 issued by the complainant.
P6 - Acknowledgement card.
P7 - Postal receipts.
P8 - Retail invoice No. 94 dated 01.01.2011.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
V COURT EXHIBIT :
C1 -Commission Report
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
