Date of Filing:06-12-2017  

                                                                                         Date of Order:23 -09-2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER

   Monday, the   23^rd day of September, 2019

C.C.No.515 /2017

Between

1. Smt GDV Rama Devi,

Wife of G.Narshimha Rao,

Aged about 44 years, Occupation: Private Service,

Residents of Flat No.202,

Ushodaya  Residency, Eenadu Colony,

Kukatpally, RR Dist. Hyderabad -72,

Telangana State, Ph No.8790993769

2. G.Narsimha Rao S/o.G.Chowdhary,

Aged about 52 years, Occ: Govt.Service,

Residents of Flat No.202, Ushodaya  Residency,

Eenadu Colony,

Kukatpally, RR Dist. Hyderabad -72,

Telangana State,                                                                ……Complainants

And

1. M/s.  IFB Industries Limited,

Rep. by its Manager/Dy.Manager Servcie & Accounts,

Mr.Rahul Jain S/o.Jayanthilal Jain,

Office at: Plot No.32&33, 1^st floor, Satya Mansion,

Chitta Reddy Colony, Tarbund Cross Roads,

Secunderabad – 500 009, Telangana State

2. THE CHAIRMAN – MANAGING DIRECTOR

M/s.  IFB Industries Limited, Plot No.IND-5,

Sector -1, East Calcutta Township, Calcutta  - 70078/700078

3. THE MANAGER – CUSTOMER SERVICE

M/s.  IFB Industries Limited,

IN VERNA,

GOA  - 403722 GOA STATE                                        ….Opposite Parties

Counsel for the complainants                   :  Mr.Uma Maheshwar Rao

Counsel for the opposite Parties 1to 3      :  M/s. D.Rajasekhar

O R D E R

(By Smt. D.Nirmala, B.Com., LLB., Member  on behalf of the bench)

              This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act  1986 seeking directions  to opposite parties   to pay the cost of the washing machine Senorita Plus  held by the complainants as the opposite parties failed to render the services  to the above said Washing machine and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation  for mental agony and further to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this complaint. 

1. The averments of the complaint are in brief that the   opposite party  No.1 is the representative of   opposite party No.2&3.  The opposite party  No.1 entered into an agreement with the  1^st complainant  herein on 28-3-2017 with a promise to render  their services for the Washing  Machine  Senorita  plus  held by the complainants  herein on annual basis AMC .  The said agreement  valid up to  27^th March, 2018 for the Washing Machine Sl No.000122111210004319 under AMC No.13775 dated 28-03-2017 and  the first opposite party has  received  AMC of Rs.3278/- by way of cheuqe bearing No.000013 drawn on Andhra Bank, Kukatpally, Hyderabad from the  first complainant herein.    The complainant  further submitted that  they lodged several complaints on different  dates to the  opposite party  No.1 more particularly on 01-09-2017, 04-09-2017, 08-09-2017, 11-09-2017, 12-09-2017, 13-09-2017, 15-09-2017 and  on 16^th September 2017 and the complainant sent  Emails  to them and  a reminder  E-mail for  the same to them on 19-09-2017.  But  there was no response  from them.  Thereafter the complainant  gave complaint through consumer help line New Delhi, vide their complaint No.434584  dated 19-09-2017 with regard to  the repairs  and servicing  of aforesaid Washing Machine under the AMC.   Thereupon  the complainants herein got issued  legal notice dated 24-09-2017 which were sent to opposite parties  called upon them to render the service and manufacturer of above said Washing Machine  under  AMC took by opposite parties.  The said notices  served  on opposite parties  1 to 3.  The opposite party  No.1 gave reply notice with all evasive and untenable answers.   Complainants were compelled to purchase another Washing Machine by spending huge amount.  It is a clear case of deficiency of service  on the part  of the opposite parties  herein  having  been taken by them  the Annual Maintenance  charges    from the complainants and willfully neglected to undertake the repairs and services of the aforesaid Washing Machine of this complainants while the subsisting contract  between first complainant and the opposite parties  herein above towards  above AMC.  Hence the present complaint is filed for the above said relief. 
2. The written version filed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 denying the allegations made against the opposite parties  and stated that  complaint  is not maintainable  either in law or on facts.  The opposite parties further  submitted that  it is admitted that  complainant No.1 entered into an agreement  (AMC) to render services for the Washing Machine stipulated therein.  The complainant suppressed too many facts.

1. The complainant  made a complaint vide No.1106212121 on 17/8/2017, the opposite parties  provided service i.,e cleaned the drain pipe and machine was made OK and call was closed on 18-08-2017
2. Again the complainant made a complaint vide No.1106261764 on 28-08-2017,  the Ops provided general service and no parts were replaced and machine was made OK and call was closed on 31-08-2017.
3. Again the complainant made a complaint vide No.1106285550 on 01-09-2017 for water nor flowing and  the same was withdrawn by the complainant herself as they don’t need any service. 
4.  Again the complainant  made a complaint vide  No.1106326952 on 11-09-2017, the  Ops provided general service and no parts were replaced and machine  was made OK and call was closed on 11-09-2017. 
5. Again the complainant  made a complaint vide No.1000425020 on 12-09-2017 and the same was  cancelled since the complainant herself demanded to call back later. 
6. Again the complainant made a  complaint vide No.1000437874  on 15-09-2017 and the same was withdrawn by the complainant herself as they don’t need any service.
7. And again the complainant  made a complaint vide No.10005202008 on 9-10-2017.  But during this period, the opposite parties  received the notice  under Reply and as such the Ops replied  suitable to the said legal notice vide reply notice dated 13-10-2017.

The Opposite parties further submitted that the complainant No.2 purchased  Washing Machine in the year 2008.  The machine is too old and outside cabinet is damaged.   The service persons of  opposite parties informed to   the complainants place whenever they attended  as  stated above with request to get replacement of outside  Cabinet  on payment of its cost as  the outside cabinet is not  covered  under AMC as per condition No.16 of AMC contract/agreement  but the complainants refused to get replacement  of outside cabinet on payment of its cost and the complainant has been making complaints  very  continuously.  The opposite parties  are very much  ready to change any defective  part which is covered under  AMC  terms and  also very much ready to provide the best service to make the complainant’s  machine in working condition.  However  to maintain the good relation to its customers they have been very continuously  attended complainant’s  complaints and also requested them to get replacement of outside cabinet  on payment of cabinet  cost as it is damaged very badly which is not covered under AMC as such it may not  set up to complainants satisfactory level without changing  the outside cabinet. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties  the  present complaint   is filed to defame the Ops  to extract money  from  the opposite parties.  Therefore  it is prayed  that  Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 

3. The   complainants and the opposite parties have filed their Evidence affidavits and  

      Written arguments.  Complainant  got marked Exs. A1 to A8 documents.   Heard   

       both sides.

4. On the basis of pleadings, evidence affidavits, documents and arguments  the          

       following points are necessary for determination.

Points for determination:

1. Whether  there is   any deficiency of service   on the part of  the opposite parties  as alleged by the complainants?
2. Whether the complainants are  entitled for any relief as prayed  in the complaint?
3. To what relief?

Point No.1&2:  There is no dispute with regard to Annual Maintenance Contract  with a  promise to render service by them for the Washing machine Senorita Plus  held by the complainants    Sl No.000122111210004319 dated 28-3-2017 and it is valid 27-3-2018. The charges for  AMC for an amount of Rs.3,278/- under Ex.A1i.e., original copy of  AMC agreement between the complainant No.1 and opposite parties.  The dispute arose when  the opposite parties failed  to keep up  their promise under Ex.A1 as averred by the complainants. 

                 The stand taken by the   opposite parties that  the complainants made a complaint vide  No.1106212121 on 17-8-2017 accordingly the opposite parties provided service i.e, cleaned the drain  pipe  and Machine was made OK and call was closed on 18-08-2017.  Again the complainant made a complaint vide No.1106261764 on 28-08-2017,  the Ops provided general service and no parts were replaced and machine was made OK and call was closed on 31-08-2017. Again the complainant made a complaint vide No.1106285550 on 01-09-2017 for water nor flowing and  the same was withdrawn by the complainant herself as they don’t need any service.   Again the complainant  made a complaint vide  No.1106326952 on 11-09-2017, the  Ops provided general service and no parts were replaced and machine  was made OK and call was closed on 11-09-2017.  Again the complainant  made a complaint vide No.1000425020 on 12-09-2017 and the same was  cancelled since the complainant herself demanded to call back later.  Again the complainant made a  complaint vide No.1000437874  on 15-09-2017 and the same was withdrawn by the complainant herself as they don’t need any service. And again the complainant  made a complaint vide No.10005202008 on 9-10-2017.  But during this period, the opposite parties  received the notice  under Reply and as such the Ops replied  suitable to the said legal notice vide reply notice dated 13-10-2017.   Whenever the complaints made complainants the opposite parties are ready to render the service to Machine to maintain the good relation with the complainants.  To prove the said contention the opposite parties did not adduce any cogent evidence to show their bonafides in attending repairs  in Machine in question.  In the  absence of the same the plea taken by the opposite parties  that the service persons of opposite parties  attended and rendered the services to the complaints whenever  they made complaints.  It is more particularly on 01-09-2017, 04-09-2017, 08-09-2017, 11-09-2017, 12-09-2017, 13-09-2017, 15-09-2017,  16^th September 2017, 18-09-2017 and 19-09-2017 if really  the service persons of opposite parties  rectify the defect why  did the complainants filed Ex.A3i.,e mails with regard to complaints made by the complainant No.1. The recitals of Ex.A3 dated 1-9-2017 that “we lodged a complaint No. 110698550 stating   water is not flowing into the machine upon many calls Technicians attended twice  but no result dt.11^th, 12^th, 13^th of September 2017 vide complaint  Nos.1106326952,  1000425020, 1000425020  and 1000437874  respectively.  Having waited for 16 days to resolve the problem but till now machine is not working we are losing  our patience. Hence forward the mail  to you to take  necessary action.”  That apart  the  recitals of the said Ex.A3 is not challenged by the opposite parties  by  disproving    the recitals in Ex.A3.  In the absence of the same the plea taken in the written version, affidavit evidence, arguments  that on the complainant  made a complaint vide  No.1106326952 on 11-09-2017, the  Ops provided general service and no parts were replaced and machine  was made OK and call was closed on 11-09-2017.  Again the complainant made a complaint vide No.1000425020 on 12-09-2017 and the same was  cancelled since the complainant herself demanded to call back later.  Again the complainant made a  complaint vide No.1000437874  on 15-09-2017 and the same was withdrawn by the complainant herself as they don’t need any service can’t be tenable.

               The machine in question  was purchased  by the complainant No.1 in the  year 2008 as the  Machine has gone old and outside cabinet  is damaged.  The service persons  of opposite parties  performed the complaints placed whenever they attended   as stated above with  a  request  to get replacement of outside cabinet  on payment of cost.  Because the outside cabinet is not covered under  AMC as per condition No.16.   As it can be seen from Ex.A1 i.e, original of  AMC the condition No.16 of course  the condition No.16 the cabinet  is not covered  under AMC.  But the  opposite parties failed to  produce any iota   of evidence  to prove that  the service person  informed the complainant that outside  cabinet  was damaged.  Except its self style statement they did not produce  any oral or documentary evidence with regard to outside cabinet was damaged to Machine in question.  

             In the light of the  above discussion   this Forum come to the conclusion  that the opposite parties  having received an amount of Rs.3278/- under Ex.A1 from complainant No.1 and failed to keep up their promise in  attending complaints made by the   complainants  amounts to deficiency of service on the  part of the opposite parties.  Therefore we hold that the  complainant No.1 is  entitled to refund  of  amount.   Since the complainant No.2 has no way concern to the present complaint.  So the complaint is dismissed against the complainant No.2.  Both the points answered accordingly infavour of the complainant No.1  and against the opposite parties. 

Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part  directing the opposite parties jointly and severally  to refund an amount  of Rs.3,278/-(i.e, the amount paid by the complainant No.1) along with  interest @ 12% P.A from the date 28-3-2017 till its realization to the complainant No.1 also with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the present complaint. Time for compliance : 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  The complaint is dismissed against complainant No.2. 

                        Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced  by us on this the  23^rd   day of September , 2019

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1- copy of Annual maintenance contract with OP IFB AMC  No.13755 dt.28-3-2017

Ex.A2- Tax invoice cum challan dt.09-05-2008

Ex.A3- complaints addressed to 1^st opposite party  dt.01-09-2017 to 19-09-2017

Ex.A4-office copy of the   legal notice addressed to the opposite parties dt.24-09-2017

Ex.A5- postal receipts  (3)

Ex.A6-postal acknowledgments (3)

Ex.A7-reply notice dated 13-10-2017

Ex.A8- Tax invoice issued by Metro

Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties

                       -Nil-

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT