D.O.F:01/09/2021
D.O.O:30/05/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.144/2021
Dated this, the 30th day of May 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Manoj Kumar K.N
Kaipravath House
Korayichal, Thimiri P.O : Complainant
Cheruvathur (Via)
Kasaragod - Dist
And
1. M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd.
Whirlpool House
Plot No.40, Sector 44,
Gurugram – 122002
Haryana, India : Opposite Parties
2. National Radio Electronics Main Road
Payyannur
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a washing machine
( Model No. 31271 -6.5 kg ), manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 , on 13.9.2019, from Opposite Party No. 2 , and at the time of purchase 2 years warranty (10 years warranty for motor) was offered for the product and warranty card also was issued to that effect. Thereafter on 18-06-2021 the washing machine became not working and the complaint was registered at toll free No.18002081800, and it was offered that the defect would be cured within a week. Thereafter a technician came and told that he would replace the defective motor only if an amount of Rs.4,000/-is paid. When the complainant showed the warranty card issued by the Opposite Party No.2, the technician told that warranty benefit would not be given since there is no date and seal of the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Parties did not care to cure the defect of the washing machine so far, in spite of several requests.
Here both the opposite parties did not cared to provide after sale service to the complainant in spite of the fact that the washing machine became defective during the validity of warranty. Thereafter complainant tried to repair the washing machine with help of a technician by replacing certain parts but it was a futile exercise. The complainant strongly believe that opposite parties delivered a substandard product.
The complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from monetary loss. The complainant purchased the washing machine since his wife was suffering from disc problem. The complainant and his wife are government employees and since the washing machine was not working they had to entrust the washing of dresses to a cooli worker, So the complaint is filed for an order directing opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs.
The notice to the opposite parties were duly served but both of them remained absent. The complainant filed his proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked documents as Ext. A1 to Ext. A3 .The Ext - A1 is the Invoice for Rs.14,200/- dated 13.09.2019 issued by the Opposite Party No.2, Ext. A2 is the Warranty Card of the Whirl pool washing machine issued by the Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant. The Ext. A3 is the payment receipt issued by the service technician.
Based on the pleadings of the rival parties in this case the following issues are
framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
The complainant’s case is that the washing machine purchased from the opposite parties became defective within warranty period and the opposite parties did not cared to cure the defects, in spite of warranty. Even though a technician of opposite parties came after several requests, he told that he would replace the defective motor only if an amount of Rs.4,000/-is paid.
Here both the opposite parties did not cared to provide after sale service to the complainant in spite of the fact that the washing machine became defective during the validity of warranty. Thereafter complainant tried to repair the washing machine with the help of a paid technician by replacing certain parts, but it was a futile exercise. The complainant strongly believe that opposite parties delivered a substandard product to him. Selling of a defective washing machine for consideration and issuing of the warranty card without date and seal at the time of purchase of the Washing Machine is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from monetary loss. The complainant purchased the washing machine since his wife was suffering from disc problem. The complainant and his wife are government employees and since the washing machine was not working they had to entrust the washing of dresses to a cooli worker ,
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this commission is of the view that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Therefore the Washing machine has some manufactural defects and opposite parties are liable to replace the it or refund the price amount as per the warranty Card. The opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant. But here the complainant is not seeking the replacement of the washing machine. His prayer is for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-But there is no reliable data for
such a huge loss in this case. This commission is of the view that a total amount of Rs.20,000/- will be a reasonable compensation
In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards costs to the complainant .
. Time for compliance is 30 Days from receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Invoice
A2- Warranty Card
A3- Payment receipt issued by the Service technician
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
