PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of May 2012
Filed on : 20-08-2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.461/2010
Between
Subash Pallicken, : Complainant
S/o. P.T. Philip, No. 7A, (By Adv. Nijoy P.K., Veereth,
Silver Lawns, Shanthi Nagar, Citizen road, Kochi-18)
Marottichodu, Edappally,
Ernakulam.
And
1. M/s. Samsung India Electronic : Opposite parties
Pvt. Ltd., 602, Vishal Bhavan, (O.P1&2. by Adv. A Rajagopalan
95, Nehru Bhavan, C.K. Aravindaksha Menon
New Delhi-110 019. Associates, Swami Chinmayananda
rep. by its Managing Director. Road, (Old D.H. Road) Ernakulam
Kochi-16)
2. M/s. Samsung India
Electronics
Pvt. Ltd., 31/989F & G, (O.P.3 by Adv.G. Rajagopal,
1st Floor, Kanikanatt Estate, 40/595, DH road, Kochi-16)
Subash Chandra Bose road,
Chettichira, Poonithura village,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 019.
rep. by its Regional Manager.
3. Blizzard, Authorized Samsung
Service Centre, 37/3630,
Ponoth road, Kaloor,
Kochi-682 017.
rep. by its Manager/Proprietor.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 11-06-2005 the complainant purchased a Samsung washing machine from M/s. Bismi Appliances, Kochi which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. In May 2010 it was found that the washing machine was not functioning properly. On 21-05-2010 the complainant registered a complaint with the service centre of the 1st opposite party. Though the service executive attended to the defect the same persisted. Thereafter on 24-05-2010 the complainant registered his complaint, since there was no response the complainant on 27-05-2010 registered another complaint. Another service executive attended to the machine and he represented that there was no complaint. Subsequent to the regular follow up on 25-06-2010 the 3rd opposite party took the machine for repairs. Time and again the complainant contacted the opposite parties to redeliver the machine after its repairs but the same fell on deaf ears. So the complainant had to purchase another machine on 13-07-2010 for Rs. 39,000/-. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties highlighting his grievances and demanding compensation. The 3rd opposite party alone sent reply stating untenable contentions. The complainant had to suffer lot of mental agony and inconveniences due to the callous and wanton attitude on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complainant seeking direction against the opposite parties to return the machine after its repairs and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
The complainant purchased the washing machine on 11-06-2005 with 2 years warranty. When the complainant was registered by the complainant on 21-05-2010, the next day itself the defect was rectified. Again on 27-05-2010 at the instance of the complainant another technician inspected the machine and rectified the defect. After a few days the complainant again made a different complaint. Thereupon the machine was taken by the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party repaired the machine and informed the complainant. But the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the service bill of the 3rd opposite party. The complainant has not; made any demand for stand by machine Approximately for a period of 5 years the machine was working properly. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant is liable to be dismissed.
3. The 3rd opposite party filed separate version raising the very same contentions of the opposite parties 1 and 2.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. Witness for the opposite parties 1 and 2 was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The points that emanated for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the machine
repaired?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay a
compensation of one lakh and the costs; of the proceedings
to the complainant.
6. Point No. i. The parties are in consensus on the following issues.
i. The complainant purchased the washing machine in question from Bismi Appliances, Ernakulam on 11-06-2005 which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party.
ii. 2 years warranty has been provided by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties
iii. On 25-06-2010 the 3rd opposite party took the machine for its repairs.
iv. On 13-07-2010 the complainant purchased a new washing machine evidenced by Ext. A5 retail invoice.
7. Indisputably it is the duty of the manufacturer to make necessary arrangements to provide service to a consumer after the expiry of warranty period. According to the opposite parties they could not repair the machine due to non availability of spare parts a liability that can not be fixed on the consumer alone for which a consumer the complainant herein is entitled to compensation. During evidence the opposite parties stated that they have repaired the machine and made it ready for delivery. It is pertinent to note that even at this stage the opposite parties have not stated the nature of repairs they have carried out and the quantum of expenses to be incurred by the complainant for the repairs except a statement that the complainant is liable to pay the expenses for the repairs. It is also to be noted that the opposite parties failed to intimate the complainant regarding the completion of the repairs of the machine. In addition to the failure of the opposite parties to intimate the complainant of the repair of the machine. The complainant was constrained to buy another one to meet the every day necessities of having to have a washing machine for easy lack of services elsewhere for the same. In spite of servies of Ext. A6 lawyer notice the opposite parties 1 &2 remained silent which alone has caused this complaint primarily. It is seemingly unfortunate why or how a company of such repute can keep mum on a genuine grievance of a consumer having put him to unnecessary inconvenience amounting to litigation. A remedy to this necessarily calls for compensation we fix it at Rs. 10,000/- either an amount of the same shall be paid or the complainant may choose an article of the opposite parties 1 and 2, products of the same amount according to his choice which if exceeds Rs. 10,000/- he shall pay the excess. The opposite parties are at liberty to choose either which the complainant shall have no recourse.
8. Point No. ii. Since the grievance of the complainant having been adequately redressed no order for costs is called for.
9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally redeliver the repaired machine to the complainant at their expense.
ii. The compensation awarded shall be met in terms of the above directions. The case stands closed as stated above.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of May 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 : copy of cash receipt
dt. 22/08/2010
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 24-06-2010
A3 : Copy of work order
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 12-07-2010
A5 : Copy of retail invoice
dt. 13-07-2010
A6 : Copy of lawyer notice
dt. 27-07-2010
A7 : Copy of A.D. card
A8 : Copy of A.D. card
A9 : Lawyer notice dt. 12/08/10
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Letter dt. 22-11-2011
B2 : ESMS Claim Form
B3 : ESMS Claim form
Depositions:
PW1 : Subash Pallicken
DW1 : Sreedhar T.P.
