PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Succinctly, the facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that on 6.11.07, the Complainant purchased a Whirlpool automatic washing machine for Rs.17,500/- from the OP No.3. However, later on, within nine months of its purchase, that too in the warranty period, it developed some defect and its steel drum was replaced on 7.10.2008 by OP-2, for which Rs.500/- vide document no. 5334 dated 14.10.2008 for the repair and replacement of some parts, were charged on the pretext that the warranty does not cover plastic parts.  Thereafter the machine started emanating some noise for which a complaint regarding the same was lodged with the OPs on 5.10.2009 and on 26.03.2010 the machine stopped working completely, whereafter despite several attempts by the engineers of the OPs went fruitless.  Despite payment of more than Rs.4270/- the machine is still not in the working condition. Despite repeated requests, neither the OPs had been able to repair it nor had they replaced the defective washing machine with a new one. A legal notice was also served upon the OPs to do the needful, but they did nothing. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                     We have perused the record as to whether the complaint is to be admitted for regular hearing or not.  We are of the opinion that it is a baseless complaint filed by the complainant to harass the OP. There is no merit in this case and the same cannot be admitted for regular hearing.

3.                     It is pertinent to mention here that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only requirement is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) wherein it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/ National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic. The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

4.                     The main grouse of the complainant is that the machine supplied to her was defective and despite number of attempts/complaints, the OPs were unable to rectify the defect, therefore they are liable to replace it with a new one.   In support of her contentions she has placed on record Annexure –I, the copy of the retail invoice to show that the said machine was purchased from OP-3 on 6.11.2007 for Rs.17,500/-, whereafter it was repaired on 14.10.2008, wherein some parts were replaced free of costs being under the warranty period and Rs.500/- were charged from her for some plastic parts, being no warranty for plastic parts, as per the  terms and conditions of the warranty.  Annexure V dated 20.04.2010 shows that she has paid Rs.4270/- to OP-2 for some parts of washing machine and Rs.250/- as visiting charges vide Annexure VI were paid to the customer care centre of the OPs. Annexure VII dated 01.04.2010 and Annexure VIII dated 9.08.2010 are the copies of the notices sent by the complainant to the OPs asking them to replace the said washing machine with a new one.

5.                     Perusal of the record clearly shows that when a complaint regarding some defect in the washing machine was reported by the complainant to the OPs, the same was dully attended and the said machine was repaired on 14.10.2008, wherein some parts were replaced free of costs like tub basket, driver assembly and PCB being under warranty period and only Rs.500/- were charged from the complainant for some plastic parts, being no warranty on them, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty.  Thereafter, as per the record placed on filed, no such defect regarding tub basket, driver assembly or PCB was ever reported by the complainant.  Admittedly on 5.10.2009, i.e. after a long period of about more than eleven and a half months, that too after the expiry of the warranty period, a defect regarding some noise was reported by the complainant followed by some other defects, for which the complainant claimed to have paid Rs.4250/-.  It is pertinent to mention here that  record Annexure III clearly indicates that as and when the defect in the said machine was reported by the complainant, it was dully rectified by the OPs according to the warranty terms and conditions and if the defect occurs after the warranty period, the complainant was liable to get it repaired from its own pocket and for that she cannot ask the OPs to get the defects rectified free of cost or to replace machine with a new one, when it is not under warranty period.  The contention of the complainant that the machine supplied to her was having a defect cannot be accepted as correct because she has not placed on record any expert opinion to prove her contentions regarding supplying of defective machine.  Otherwise also, the first defect seems to have occurred14.10.2008 that is after a long period of about 11 months from the date of the purchase of the washing machine, which clearly shows that the machine was working properly from 6.11.2007 to 14.10.2008. Therefore, the oral assertions of the complainant without any cogent evidence cannot be taken into consideration against the OP to hold them liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. 

6.                     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The present complaint therefore cannot be admitted for regular hearing and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.