Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.25,400/- (value of washing machine); Rs.5,000/- spent towards SMS plus telephone costs; Rs.28,000/- (washerman charges); Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony besides costs. 

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant on 25-10-10 purchased Godrej washing machine model GWI 5511 for Rs.25,400/- (inclusive of VAT).   Two days later company engineer came to Kollur and demonstrated the washing machine to deal with regular procedure. The complainant believed the representation of the opposite parties that the washing machine would convert hard water into soft water to wash clothes.  Later on the complainant came to know that the said washing machine was without Ozone technology.   On 17-09-11 the machine slid to a stand still while using, did not function and the clothes stuck up in the machine. The said washing machine displayed a symbol as ‘U4’ which did not find place in user manual.  The complainant informed the same to the opposite parties by telephone and SMS.   The opposite parties failed to rectify the problem.  On 11-10-11 the opposite parties agreed to refund 50% of amount only as depreciation as a special case.   The complainant did not accept the same.  The complainant family was using the machine to their needs without Ozone technology.   The complainant invested about Rs.5,000/- for making calls to the opposite parties.  The complainant suffered for 14 months without washing machine and constrained to spend Rs.2,000/- pm., to washer man to wash clothes.  The complainant also suffered mental agony. The complainant therefore be allowed.

3.     The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the version of the 1^st opposite party and their contention in brief is thus:

        The complainant is not a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  The washing machine purchased by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party was manufactured by the    1^st opposite party.   The said washing machine is upgraded version with all latest facilities.  After complete check up and verification by the company the product will be released into market for sales.   The complainant is a resident of Kollur where there is lot of power cut and there is no availability of quality electricity.   As such the problem to the machine might have been occurred due to low quality of electricity supply to the washing machine.   The service engineers attended the complainant after receiving the information and tried to rectify the problem immediately.  As the spare part was not available with the service engineer who attended to the problem informed the same and requested the complainant to wait till next day.    On the next day the service engineer approached the complainant to attend problem and rectify the same by replacing the spare part but the complainant and his family members did not allow the service engineer to rectify the problem and to replace the spare part.   The complainant used the washing machine to a maximum period and to a maximum length and his demand for return of amount is usurious and illegal.    Inspite of that the 1^st opposite party agreed to pay 50% of the invoice.  But the complainant did not agree to receive the same.  The washing machine can be rectified within a short span of time.  The 1^st opposite party is ready to rectify the problem and keep the washing machine in good condition if the complainant permits.   The 2^nd opposite party is dealer of the 1^st opposite party.  The duty of the 2^nd opposite party is to sale products of the 1^st opposite party to its customers.  The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked on behalf of complainant.   No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.

5.      Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation and if to what amount?
3. To what relief?

6.    Admitted facts in this complaint are:

1. The 1^st opposite party is manufacturer of washing machine purchased by the complainant.
2. The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party in selling washing machines.
3. The complainant purchased GWI 5511 washing machine from the 2^nd opposite party on 25-10-10 (Ex.A-1).
4. The said washing machine carries a guarantee (Ex.A-2).
5. There was correspondence between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party through E-mail (Exs.A-4 to A-14).
6. The 1^st opposite party offered 50% of the invoice amount.

7.    POINT No.1:-    In Ex.A-11 the opposite party through its Service Manager mentioned the following:

                “As per warranty terms, if any functional problem arises, the same will be rectified or parts will be replaced for making the appliance functionally ok and no replacement of the product or refund will be issued.

As a special case, we have considered your case for refund and as per HO approval, 50% amount will only be refunded which is final by taking back the appliance”.

8.     The said proposal is not accepted by the complainant contending that he purchased new washing machine.  The complainant purchasing new machine did not find place either in the complaint or in his affidavit.

        The warranty conditions in Ex.A-2 are extracted below for better appreciation:

        “1. Repairs and replacement of parts will be carried out through                 the authorized customer service centre.

1. All transportation and handling expenses incurred while repairing will be paid by the customer.
2. For appliances installed beyond the municipal limits of the jurisdiction of the authorized service center, charges towards technician’s visit and other incidentals will be borne by the customer.
3. While the company will make every effort to carry out the repairs at the earliest, it however is made expressly clear that the company is under no obligation to do so in a specified period of time.
4. The company/its authorized service centre will collect any parts, components replaced.
5. Warranty does not cover accessories to the appliance.
6.  while company would take all necessary steps to repair the Appliance supplied under the warranty and keep sufficient stock of the spare parts of the Appliance with them, however, in certain cases, at the sole discretion of the company, the company may due to non availability of spare parts of the appliance resulting into the appliance not being repaired by the company, offer a replacement scheme to the purchasers of such appliance which cannot be repaired due to non availability of spare parts of the appliance purchased under the warranty, the company would offer a replacement of appliance.   The table which gives the details of the replacement offer is subject to change from year to year and shall also be applicable on the MRP of the product to be purchased as a replacement for details log on to www.godrejsmartcare.com”.

9.     The opposite parties failed to explain why the subject washing machine displayed error code ‘U4’ as shown in Ex.A-3 which is within their special knowledge.   The subject machine was idle from 17-09-11 till date.  The subject instrument being an electronic appliance some other parts getting rusted or becoming disuse during all these period is having considerable force (as rightly contended by the complainant).  Deducting 50% towards the value of the machine for use for about an year under any circumstances is not at all reasonable.  Under those circumstances, deducting 20% from the value of the machine for the period used by the complainant being an electronic appliance in our considered opinion will meet ends of justice.  The cost of the subject washing machine as seen from Ex.A-1 is Rs.25,400/-.   20% of depreciation value comes to Rs.5,080/-.  We therefore direct the opposite party to refund Rs.25,400/- - Rs.5080/- = Rs.20,320/-.   We therefore answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

10.   POINT No.2:-   The complainant claimed Rs.5,000/- towards SMS and telephone calls and Rs.28,000/- for washer man @ Rs.2,000/-pm and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony.  The complainant did not place any material before this Forum that he incurred Rs.5,000/- towards SMS and telephone calls.   In the absence of any cogent evidence the complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.5,000/- towards SMS and telephone calls.

11.   The complainant claimed Rs.28,000/- towards washer man charges @Rs.2,000/- pm even according to the complainant.  The washing machine gave trouble on 17-09-11 and the complaint was filed on 02-01-12 i.e., 3½ months.  Therefore the contention of the complainant that he suffered for 14 months without washing machine and spent Rs.2,000/- to washer man to wash the clothes is devoid of merit.   

12.    The complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony.                    No doubt the complainant was put to inconvenience on account of trouble faced with the washing machine.  The amount of compensation claimed and to be awarded should commensurate with the injury sustained.   Under those circumstances, awarding Rs.2,000/- as damages and Rs.1,000/- towards costs will meet ends of justice.

13.  POINT No.3:-   In view of the above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.20,320/- (Rupees twenty thousand three hundred and twenty only)  together with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till realization after the complainant handing over washing machine.
2. The opposite parties are further directed to pay RS.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards damages and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are directed to deposit the above said amounts within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 26^th day of July, 2012.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:-      NIL  

                                                                                            PRESIDENT