This C.C. coming before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Yadlapally Ramesh, Advocate for complainant and of Sri K. Babji, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3; opposite party No.1 appeared in person; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on 08-09-2010 to purchase a dish wash machine, after satisfying the assurances, given by the opposite party, the complainant purchased IFB Brand Dish wash machine for Rs.30,000/-. After installation, the machine started giving troubles. Immediately, the problem was informed to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 deputed the service engineer to rectify the problem. The service engineer, who attended for repairs, recommended for replacement. Upon which, the opposite parties replaced the dish washer with new one but the complainant has been suffering from the same problem even after replacement, thus, the machine kept idle and the complainant suffered a lot due to the deficient services of opposite parties and also lost her confidence on the services of opposite parties. The complainant further submitted that the opposite party did not give any response to the requests of the complainant regarding the replacement, vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, issued legal notice on 26-04-2012 and as there is no response, filed the present complainant by alleging the deficiency of service and prayed to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.30,000/- with interest at 24% P.A. from the date of purchase and Rs.20,000/- towards damages and costs.
3. The documents filed by the complainant were marked under exhibits as A1 to A4.
Ex.A1:-Waybill dt. 23-11-2010.
Ex.A2:-Office copy of legal notice, dt. 26-04-2012 with postal acknowledges.
Ex.A3:-Reply notice dt.29-05-2012.
Ex.A4:-Photocopy of Warranty Card.
4. On being noticed, the opposite parties 2 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their written version by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint.
5. In its written version, the opposite parties 2 & 3 admitted the purchase of dish Washer and the installation of the same on 30-09-2010 at the house of the complainant and also submitted that after installation there is no complaint on working condition of the machine. The machine is in good working condition and has no manufacturing defects and as such denied the allegations of the complainant regarding the inferior quality. After receipt of complaint on 20-03-2011, the technicians tested the machine, did not find any defect and advised the complainant to prewash the utensils before put into the dish washer. Thereafter, on 13-08-2011 once again they received a complaint; the service men of opposite party attended and by de-scaling the machine rectified the problem. The opposite parties 2 & 3 also submitted that the complainant utilized the machine satisfactorily for more than two years, they advised the complainant to prewash the machine before operate it by following the instructions as mentioned in the manual, without following the same, the complainant demanding for replacement for second time and further submitted that the warranty period was already elapsed and as such not entitled for the damages and the machine is in good working condition and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs as there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
6. In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief
as prayed for?
Point:-
7. According to the aforesaid contentions and the material on record, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased IFB Dish Washer from the opposite parties and also a fact that the opposite parties installed the same at the residence of the complainant. The only dispute is with regard to the arising of defects even after replacement. As far as the facts in the case is concerned, the opposite parties have themselves replaced the defective machine by another new machine, which remained equally problematic within few days from the replacement thus, the purchaser made repeated complaints to the opposite parties, evidenced under exhibit A3. Exhibit A3 is the reply notice dt. 29-05-2012, wherein, the opposite party admitted that they received the complaints from the purchaser on 11-10-2011, 18-10-2011 and 21-10-2011 i.e. within one month from date of replacement, thus it is clear that the problems were not rectified even after services, done by the opposite parties. It is also the case of the complainant that there was repeated failure on the part of opposite parties even after repeated repairs. On a perusal of said facts and the terms & conditions, supplied by the opposite parties we came to a conclusion that it is the obligation of the opposite parties to replace the defective machine, which has defects, could not be removed even after several repairs from the date of purchase and as such the plea taken by the opposite parties regarding the limitation is not acceptable. In this regard we have relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in New Holland Fiat India Pvt. Ltd., Hind Motors (India Ltd.) Vs. N.K. Mohan Lal and Ors. I (2015) CPJ 311 (NC). In view of the aforesaid circumstances we cannot come to a conclusion in favour of the parties in the absence of any proofs (Job Sheets) to disprove the allegations regarding the manufacturing defect, accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to replace the defective IFB Dish Washer vide its No.10-50245206 with new one or to refund Rs.30,000/- to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest @9% P.A. till its realization.
Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this the 23rd day of February, 2015.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED:-
For Complainant:- For Opposite party:-
-None- -None-
DOCUMENTS MARKED:-
For Complainant:- For Opposite party:-
Ex.A1:- | Waybill dt. 23-11-2010. | - |
Ex.A2:- | Office copy of legal notice, dt. 26-04-2012 with postal acknowledges. | - |
Ex.A3:- | Reply notice dt.29-05-2012. | - |
Ex.A4:- | Photocopy of Warranty Card. | - |
3. The documents filed by the complainant were marked under exhibits as A1 to A4.
Ex.A1:-Waybill dt. 23-11-2010.
Ex.A2:-Office copy of legal notice, dt. 26-04-2012 with postal acknowledges.
Ex.A3:-Reply notice dt.29-05-2012.
Ex.A4:-Photocopy of Warranty Card.
4. On being noticed, the opposite parties 2 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their written version by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint.
5. In its written version, the opposite parties 2 & 3 admitted the purchase of dish Washer and the installation of the same on 30-09-2010 at the house of the complainant and also submitted that after installation there is no complaint on working condition of the machine. The machine is in good working condition and has no manufacturing defects and as such denied the allegations of the complainant regarding the inferior quality. After receipt of complaint on 20-03-2011, the technicians tested the machine, did not find any defect and advised the complainant to prewash the utensils before put into the dish washer. Thereafter, on 13-08-2011 once again they received a complaint; the service men of opposite party attended and by de-scaling the machine rectified the problem. The opposite parties 2 & 3 also submitted that the complainant utilized the machine satisfactorily for more than two years, they advised the complainant to prewash the machine before operate it by following the instructions as mentioned in the manual, without following the same, the complainant demanding for replacement for second time and further submitted that the warranty period was already elapsed and as such not entitled for the damages and the machine is in good working condition and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs as there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
6. In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief
as prayed for?
Point:-
7. According to the aforesaid contentions and the material on record, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased IFB Dish Washer from the opposite parties and also a fact that the opposite parties installed the same at the residence of the complainant. The only dispute is with regard to the arising of defects even after replacement. As far as the facts in the case is concerned, the opposite parties have themselves replaced the defective machine by another new machine, which remained equally problematic within few days from the replacement thus, the purchaser made repeated complaints to the opposite parties, evidenced under exhibit A3. Exhibit A3 is the reply notice dt. 29-05-2012, wherein, the opposite party admitted that they received the complaints from the purchaser on 11-10-2011, 18-10-2011 and 21-10-2011 i.e. within one month from date of replacement, thus it is clear that the problems were not rectified even after services, done by the opposite parties. It is also the case of the complainant that there was repeated failure on the part of opposite parties even after repeated repairs. On a perusal of said facts and the terms & conditions, supplied by the opposite parties we came to a conclusion that it is the obligation of the opposite parties to replace the defective machine, which has defects, could not be removed even after several repairs from the date of purchase and as such the plea taken by the opposite parties regarding the limitation is not acceptable. In this regard we have relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in New Holland Fiat India Pvt. Ltd., Hind Motors (India Ltd.) Vs. N.K. Mohan Lal and Ors. I (2015) CPJ 311 (NC). In view of the aforesaid circumstances we cannot come to a conclusion in favour of the parties in the absence of any proofs (Job Sheets) to disprove the allegations regarding the manufacturing defect, accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to replace the defective IFB Dish Washer vide its No.10-50245206 with new one or to refund Rs.30,000/- to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest @9% P.A. till its realization.
Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this the 23rd day of February, 2015.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED:-
For Complainant:- For Opposite party:-
-None- -None-
DOCUMENTS MARKED:-
For Complainant:- For Opposite party:-
Ex.A1:- | Waybill dt. 23-11-2010. | - |
Ex.A2:- | Office copy of legal notice, dt. 26-04-2012 with postal acknowledges. | - |
Ex.A3:- | Reply notice dt.29-05-2012. | - |
Ex.A4:- | Photocopy of Warranty Card. | - |
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
