Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/428/2018

N.Shantha Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Viveks Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.Mohammed Rafi

21 Sep 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on : 27.11.2012

Date of Disposal                :  21.09.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHENNAI(NORTH)

2^nd  Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No. 428/20158

 

DATED THIS DAY WEDNESDAY THE 21^st  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

N.Shanthakumar,

No.4A, Kumaragam,

29, 1^st cross street,

Kasturi bai nagar,

Adyar Chennai-600 020.                                                      ….  Complainant

 

…Vs…

 

1)M/s.Whirlpool of India Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director

A-4 MIDC

Ranjan Gaon.

Taluka Shiror,

District Pune-419 204

 

2).M/s. Sairam Refrigeration

Represented by its manager,

Authorised Service Partner of M/s.Whirlpool of India Ltd.,

Old no.46 A, New no.64,

1^st main road, CIT Nagar,

Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

 

3).M/s.Viveks Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

No.14, 4^th main road,

Nanaganallur,

Chennai-600 061.                                                                   …Opposite parties.

                                     

Counsel for Complainant                        : M.Mohammed Rafi and 2 other.

 

Counsel for  1^st opposite party                  : Lavanya Shankar

Counsel for  3^rd opposite party                 : K.P.C Mogan

Counsel for  2^nd opposite party                 : Exparte

 

 

ORDER

TMT.KAVITHA KANNAN  M.E.: MEMBER-I

           The complainant has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the CPA of 1986, to set right the washing machine purchased which us covered under warranty, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ as compensation for mental agony due to deficiency of service and negligent services and to pay the cost of complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF :

The complainant submitted that he had purchased a washing machine from the 3^rd opposite party manufactured by 1^st opposite party in November 2005 by paying a sum of Rs.22,000/- .  The complainant submitted that he had purchased the said machine for his domestic purpose with two year warranty.  The washing machine had worked properly only for a short period and thereafter the repairs crept in frequently in the said machine. Consequently the said washing machine did not work properly.  When this problem of breakdown of the machine was informed to 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties, their service personnel attend the faults, and on one occasion informed that the above said model manufactured by 1^st opposite party was a failure model and they informed that replace it with another model. The complainant had agreed to replacement and accordingly the machine was replaced in June 2008 with another machine being the model of ‘Sensation Neo Plus Elite’.  The complainant stated that time of replacement he was assured that the replaced machine would work efficiently. However even this  replaced machine often broke down the often the faults were attended and thus the machine did not give a trouble free usage since its replacement.  Further on one occasion when a fault was attended he was informed by 1^st opposite party’s.  The complainant could get an extended warranty by paying a sum of Rs.3849/- paid by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party on 15.07.2010, 2^nd opposite party informed that the machine was covered with extended warranty of 2 years from 05.11.2010 to 04.11.2012.  Being so as usual the problems arose in functioning of the said machine at regular intervals and in may 2012 the machine had totally broke down.  The complainant informed the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties about the fault.  The opposite parties representatives attended the fault they had informed complainant that even this machine was a failure model and now the drum in this machine needs to be replaced,  the drum is not available and suggested again for a replacement.  The opposite parties replaced machine is a  failure model put complainant in great shock.  The complainant submitted that he had purchased the washing machine from the 1^st opposite party was a failure model and agreed for the replacement. But after replacement now again the complainant was informed that even the replaced machine was a failure model and this information given by the opposite parties.  All the opposite parties responsible for the loss and hardship suffered by complainant. Complainant sent a legal notice to opposite parties on 08.08.2012.  The complainant submitted that the act of the opposite parties in manufacturing and selling the defective/failure model washing machine is clear case of deficiency in service. The complainant prays for rectification of defects and  to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages and costs.

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF 1^st    OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party denies all the allegations that are contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein and the complainant is put to the strict proof of the same. It is contended that as good will gesture the 1^st opposite party replaced the machine in the year 2008without seeking any additional payment and further contended that without prejudice it is ready to set right the defects and also to replace the spares if it is necessary if the complainant pay the cost as warranty has expired  and further stated that the 1^st opposite party have earned good will among the public with their after sales service and further contend that the complainant failed to produce any material to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint and denied the deficiency in service alleged in the complaint.

3.WRITTEN VERSION OF 3^rd   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The 3^rd  opposite party deny each and every averments made by the complainant as false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same. The 3^rd opposite party has sold the washing machine which is new and good one and which is not a failure model.  The allegations stated that the 3^rd opposite party has sold defective/failure model is false. The opposite party is  not acquinted with other allegations.  The allegations no way connected with this opposite party.  This opposite party is not responsible for the alleged mental agony and hardship  that the complainant had claimed to have suffered by him.  The 3^rd opposite party states that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service  or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The Proof Affidavit was filed by the Complainant as his evidence and the documents were marked as Ex. A1 to A8 and Written argument also filed by Complainant. The 1^st opposite parties filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 document was marked on his side. The 3^rd opposite parties filed proof affidavit and no document were marked on his side. The 2^nd Opposite party was Set Ex-parte.

5.POINT NO. 1

Under the influence of the 1st Opposite party's advertisements, The Complainant purchased a brand new Whirlpool 'Sendation Ex' model washing machine manufactured by 1st opposite party and sold by 3rd Opposite party, paying a sum of Rs.22,000/ vide receipt No.4352 on 03/11/2005 marked as Ex.A1. The washing machine which was specifically purchased to satisfy the domestic chores started to malfunction after some years, the same was lodged as complaint  to 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party, repair work was carried out by the opposite parties, after few days of which the complainant was informed by the Opposite party's service personnel that the washing machine was  a failure model and henceforth suffered from frequent breakdowns. The opposite party's replaced the faulty machine with a brand new machine  model 'Sensatiom Nei plus Elite' in June 2008 assuring the efficient working of the same. After a few years of commissioning the new machine , the new machine also started not functioning properly and finally broke down following which the 1st Opposite party was called upon for service. The 1st opposite party redirected the complainant to 3rd opposite party, being the authorised service partner of the 1st opposite party. The 2^nd  opposite party issues an extended warranty for a span of 2 years from 5-11-2010 to 4-11-2012.  Following  that the new washing machine malfunctioned in regular intervals and failed to work as promised by opposite parties the complainant lodges complaint about the service required for the new machine on account of frequent malfunction and breakdown. The 3rd Opposite party's service personnel who arrives to repair the said washing machine also informs that this new replaced machine was also a failure model and recommends to replace the washing machine's drum. He also recommended that the recommended drum was not available currently it was wise enough to request for another replacement of the said machine. Being shocked about this information. The opposite parties acknowledged the same provided the complainant paid for the replacement. Not interested with the above deal the complainant files a legal notice on all three opposite parties which remained unanswered. The complainant contended that he was supplied a failure model washing machine in succession prays for set right the defects in the machine and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and hardship and further other reliefs.

6. The 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party denied all other allegations except the fact that the complainant purchased a washing machine from 3rd  Opposite party who was his authorized sales dealer followed by which the machine was extensively used by the complainant for 3 years. The 1st opposite party under most goodwill gesture replaced the first machine with a new machine. On goodwill the 1st opposite party expresses to solve the defects in the second machine provided the complainant bears the cost of spare parts. The 1st opposite party also defends that no elaborate evidence is produced in order to prove the claim of the complaint.

7. The 3^rd opposite party defends that the complainant has not approached him at any point of time after purchase of the machine and he was no way connected to the complaint and hence  contended that the complaint is not maintainable against 3rd opposite party.

8. The complainant purchased of a whirlpool washing machine manufactured by 1st opposite party and sold by 3rd opposite party paying a sum of Rs. 22,000/-vide bill no. 4352 dated 3/11/05 marked  as ExA1. Followed by purchase the complainant has three year warranty(from 4/11/2007 to 3/11/2010)  for the said washing machine with the 1st opposite party’s authorized service partner Mothers Home Care paying a sum of Rs.1888/- vide receipt no.6665 dated 10/12/2005 marked as Ex.A2. The machine being under warranty is replaced with a new branded machine by 1^st opposite party on 17/6/2008 duly signed by both the complainant and 1^st opposite party a Appliance Replacement Advice doc no.3200009842 with a declaration stating, “This is a replacement against defective goods under product warranty, not for sale” marked as Ex.A3. The complainant had extended warranty on 15/7/2010 which would be effective for 2 years vide receipt no. 003167 marked as Ex.A4.  Due to repeated breakdown of the replaced machine also the complainant lodges a complaint which was evaded by the opposite parties and on occasions replied that spare part for the same service demanded was not available. Hence the complainant files a legal notice dated 8/8/2012 on all 3 opposite parties on their unfair trade practice carried out by selling both failure machines willfully marked as Ex A5. The opposite parties failed to respond to the same after receiving the legal notice. The acknowledgements of the legal notice sent to all 3 opposite parties is marked as Ex.A6,  Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 respectively.

9. The 1st opposite party files the warranty terms of whirlpool washing machines as Ex.B1. Perused documents, the complainant purchased a new branded washing machine from 3rd opposite party. But no documents supporting the averments containing the fact that the washing machine faced frequent breakdown is not filed and proved by the complainant. The complainant fails to file any proof showing the conversation between the opposite parties and him . The complainant totally failed to disclose any complaint number or email lodged with the service centre of the opposite party. No job cards pertaining to the frequent breakdowns has been produced by complainant. Mere filing of  the photocopy of purchase bills, warranty bills we cannot  presume the nature of fault incurred in the washing machine. The previous washing machine was replaced by the 1^st opposite party in the year 2008 as a good gesture since it is reputed manufacturing company.  Though the complainant alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine there is no expert opinion or evidence adduced to prove such contention.  The complainant has not filed any documents to show the nature of defect in the washing machine even the prayer does not state what are the defects in the machine to be rectified by the opposite parties, the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

10. POINT NO.2

As the washing machine has worked extensively for 4 years since 2008 to 2012 there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence for the reasons stated that in point no.1 it is found there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.   Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

                              In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated by the Member-I to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21^st  day of September 2022.

 

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

Ex. A1	03.11.2005	Bills issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex. A2	10.12.2005	Invoice cum receipt issued by the 1st opposite Party’s authorized centre for service done
Ex. A3	17.06.2008	Appliance replacement advice issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex. A4	15.07.2010	Bill given by 2nd opposite party for warranty extension from 05.11.2010 to 04.11.2012.
Ex. A5	08.08.2012	Legal notice by complainant to opposite parties.
Ex. A6	09.08.2012	Acknowledgement card for service of legal notice on 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A7	10.08.2012	Acknowledgement card for service of legal notice on 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A8	14.08.2012	Acknowledgement card for service of legal notice on 1st opposite party.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:-.

Ex.B1		Warranty terms

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT