BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 25^th day of July 2018

                                                                                                Filed on : 30.01.2018

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                           President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                          Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                Member.

                             CC.No.56/2018

                                    Between

                                               O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant had purchased a washing machine from the 3^rd opposite party - Nandilath G mart Edappally on 25.01.2017 at a price of Rs.20,190/- which was manufactured and marketed by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant and her husband are senior citizens and they depend on washing machine to wash their cloths due to their old age ailments. Contrary to the assurances and promises offered by the 1^st opposite party, the machine worked properly only up to November 2017.  In the month of November, the functioning of the washing machine ceased and hence the complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party- M/s. Nandilath G Mart at Edappally to rectify the defect of the washing machine, but they intimated the complainant to contact the 1^st opposite party-customer care of Videocon. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the said customer care service and complained through the toll free number of the 1^st opposite party. As per the registered complaint, one of the technicians Mr.Praveen inspected the disputed washing machine but the defects were not rectified. The complainant alleged in her complaint that she contacted the opposite parties several times for resolving the damage of the washing machine but the opposite parties could not cure the defects. They converse the complainant with lame excuses. It is submitted that at last, the complainant had contacted the branch manager, one Mr. Pramode and he had intimated the complainant that some spare parts are to be changed in the disputed washing machine and he would contact the complainant after verifying the availability of the required spares in the market, but thereafter there was no response from him and he did not attend any of the calls from the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party amounted to serious deficiency in service.  They have to spent huge amount for washing their cloths at present.  It is also submitted that the services and guarantee offered by the opposite parties were only namesake. The complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, hardships, mental agony etc... due to the negligent and deficient service offered by the opposite parties.  Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the 1^st opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.20,190/-  being the price of the disputed washing machine to the complainant.  She also sought for the payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and costs of the proceedings from the 1^st opposite party. She also sought for a direction against the 3^rd opposite party not to deceive the customers by selling products having no effective service. Hence this complaint.

2)      Despite service of notices from this Forum, the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties appeared and the 1^st opposite party filed their version after the statutory period. Hence we rejected their version. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties did not file their versions.  They were also absent in the following proceedings of this complaint for reasons not stated or explained.

3)      Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidences which were marked as Exbt. A1 and A2. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties.

4)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund an amount of Rs. 20,190/- towards the price of the disputed washing machine from the 1^st opposite party?
3. Whether the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order from this Forum directing the opposite party to sell the only those products having proper and adequate service facility?

5)      Issue No. (i)

According to the complainant she had purchased a washing machine from the 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.20,190/- which was  manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The above washing machine became defunct after 10 months from the date of its purchase. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party through their toll free number for rectifying the defect of the washing machine. One of the technicians of the 1^st opposite party, inspected the said machine after some days, but they did not rectify the defects. At last, the complainant contacted the service centre of the 1^st opposite party they were also unable to find out the defects of the disputed washing machine and failed to make it in a working condition. The complainant repeatedly contacted the opposite parties several times through their service providers but all their efforts were in vain. Exbt.A1 is the purchase invoice which shows that the complainant had purchased disputed washing machine on 25.01.2017 from the 3^rd opposite party at a price of Rs.20,190/- which was marketed and manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  Exbt.A2 legal notice dated on 12.01.2017 issued by Adv.K.Mohammed Faisal Naha under the instruction from the complainant to the opposite party stated that the disputed washing machine became defunct within 10 months from the date of its purchase and the opposite party miserably failed either to rectify the defects of the washing machine or to replace it with a new one even when the washing machine is under the warranty period.

6)      In this case, the complainant alleged that the defects of the disputed washing machine could not be rectified by the service providers due to its inherent manufacturing defects. The complainant elaborately stated in her complaint that she had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss…etc due to the dis-functioning of the above said washing machine.   On going through the complaint and proof affidavit filed by the complainant, it is clearly explained that the deficient service was offered to the complainant by the opposite parties. The complainant is a senior citizen and residing along with her aged husband.  They suffered a lot of inconvenience due to the non-functioning of the disputed washing machine. The opposite parties miserably failed either to rectify the defects of the washing machine or to replace with a new one; even when the washing machine is under the warranty period. In the absence of the contrary evidence adduced by the opposite parties, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable and she is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed washing machine. Admittedly, the complainant had used the washing machine only for 10 months from the date of its purchase. We are of the opinion that the 1^st opposite party is liable to refund the price of the disputed washing machine to the complainant after deducting 10% depreciation amount, since the complainant had used the washing machine for 10 months. Thus the 1^st and 2^nd issues are decided in favour of the complainant.

7)      Issue No. (iii)

Having found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the compensation for the deficient service offered to her and for the inconvenience suffered by the complainant, we fix the compensation amount Rs.2000/-.

8)      The complainant has spent her valuable time and money to contest this case before this Forum, therefore we find that the complainant is entitled to get costs of this proceedings, which we fix at Rs.1000/-.   

9)      Issue (iv)

The complainant alleges that the 3^rd opposite party is selling their product like washing machine by offering proper and adequate after sale service. But the assured offer after sale service was not provided to the complainant as promised, which act amounted to deceiving the complainant by giving false promises. Therefore, the complainant sought for the direction to the opposite party to sell their product only if, it has proper and adequate service facility. This Forum, is of course, empowered to provide compensation if proper services are not provided by the opposite party dealer. But this Forum has no power to direct the opposite party not to sell washing machine if it has no or adequate service facility, which act would amount to insisting on prescribing conditions of sale. Therefore, we decline to allow the above prayer of the complainant to give direction to the 3^rd opposite party to sell their washing machine only if those products are provided with after sale service facility.

10)    In the result the complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows:

1.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to refund the price of the  washing machine for reasons stated above after deducting 10% towards depreciation ie., (20190-2019) Rs. 18171/-.
2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- towards compensation for the deficient service offered to the complainant.
3. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the 31^st day of the receipt of a copy of this order till the date of payment.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of July 2018.

                                      Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

                                       Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                                    Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                                             Forwarded by Order

                                                                             Senior Superintendent

 APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:        Nil    

Date of Despatch   ::

            By Hand     ::

            By Post       ::

…………………