CC No.75/2016

Filed on:16.01.2016

Disposed on 21.10.2016

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.75/2016                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

PRESENT:

                        Smt. L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                                 MEMBER

     Sri.  BALAKRISHNA V.MASALI B.A., LL.B

              MEMBER

                                             V/S

ORDER

BY SMT. L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay the washing machine’s amount of Rs.43,120/- and further to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain suffering caused to the Complainant and direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- miscellaneous charges to the Complainant.   
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleged that he has purchased a IFB Front loading 7.0kg Elite Aqua SX Ultra-silver washing machine from the Respondent No.2 on 19.11.2012 by paying a sum of RS.30,000/- in cash, vide bill No.21511201773 and received a certified warranty period of 4 years and assured guarantee of 10 years which is hereinafter referred to as the ‘appliance’.   The Respondent No.1 is a Company which manufactures the appliance.   It is submitted that on 05.10.2015, there was a technical problem in the functioning of the appliance.   The Complainant contacted Respondent No.2 to inform about the same and to get the issue rectified.  The Respondent No.2 instructed the Complainant to contact Respondent No.1 Company and to get the problem redressed by the service personnel. The Complainant contacted the Respondent No.1 to get the problem redressed. The service person employed by Respondent No.1 checked the appliance and replaced the hose pipe/delivery pipe and charged Rs.500/- for his services.  Despite this, the problem persisted but the Respondent No.1 assured the Complainant that the problem would be dealt with within 24 hours.   After repeated attempts by the Complainant to get the problem resolved by Respondent No.1, the service person employed by Respondent No.1 checked the washing machine and informed the Complainant that the appliance was missing a rat mesh and hence rats have destroyed parts of the appliance due to which it cannot function.  That the rat mesh is an essential part of the appliance which is to be provided by the manufacturer and the service engineer is required to check if there is a rat mesh in the appliance during the time of installation of the appliance.  It is further submitted that the service engineer has failed to check the rat mesh in the appliance during the time of installation and has not informed the Complainant about the defect in the appliance.  The Respondents did not take any steps to resolve the problem in the functioning of the appliance.  The Complainant’s wife is diabetic and is unable to wash the clothes manually. Hence, the Complainant was forced to buy another washing machine on installment basis from Pai International Electronics Ltd, Indiranagar, Bangalore, by spending an additional amount of Rs.43,120/-.  On 18.11.2015, the Complainant issued legal notice to the Respondents calling them to compensate the Complainant.   However, the Respondents failed to reply to the same.  The Respondents have failed to inform the Complainant about the defective appliance at the time of installment of the appliance.  Further, Respondents have failed to provide services to rectify the problem with the functioning of the appliance although there was warranty and assurance given by Respondent No.1 at the time of the purchase of the appliance.  

3. Wherefore, in view of foregoing circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Forum pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the washing machine’s amount of Rs.43,120/- and further to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain suffering caused to the Complainant and direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- miscellaneous charges to the Complainant.   Hence, this complaint.

3.   Even though notice was served on the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties fails to put their appearance, hence placed ex-parte. 

4.      In support of the complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and documents.   Heard the arguments of the complainant.  

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.     POINT NO.1: On perusing the pleadings along with documents produced by the complainant, it reveals that the Opposite Party No.1 is a Company which manufactures of the washing machine, Opposite Party No.2 is seller of washing machine.  On 19.11.2012 the Complainant purchased a IFB Front loading 7.0kg Elite Aqua SX Ultra-silver washing machine from the Opposite Party No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- in cash, vide bill No.21511201773 and received a certified warranty period of 4 years and assured guarantee of 10 years which is hereinafter referred to as the ‘appliance’.   On 05.10.2015, there was a technical problem in the functioning of the appliance.   The Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.2 to inform about the same and to get the issue rectified.  The Opposite Party No.2 instructed the Complainant to contact Opposite Party No.1 company and to get the problem redressed by the service personnel. Accordingly, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 to get the problem redressed.  The service person employed by Opposite Party No.1 checked the appliance and replaced the hose pipe/delivery pipe and charged Rs.500/- for his services.  The Opposite Party No.1 assured the Complainant that the problem would be dealt within 24 hours.   After repeated attempts by the Complainant, the service person of Opposite Party No.1 checked the washing machine and informed the Complainant that the appliance was missing a rat mesh and hence rats have destroyed parts of the appliance due to which it cannot function.  The rat mesh is an essential part of the appliance which is to be provided by the manufacturer and the service engineer is required to check if there is a rat mesh in the appliance during the time of installation of the appliance and he has not informed the Complainant about the defect in the appliance.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the Bill No.21511201773 dt.19.11.2012 and warranty customer copy.  The Complainant’s wife is diabetic and is unable to wash the cloths manually.  For that Complainant buy another washing machine on installment basis from Pai International Electronics Limited, Indiranagar for Rs.43,120/- Complainant contacted Opposite Parties to get the problem redressed but Opposite Parties are not responded.  On 18.11.2015 the Complainant issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to compensate the Complainant, said legal notice served to the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant.  Thereby, this clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Hence, these points are held in affirmative.

8. POINT No.2:- In view of the finding on point No.1, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant along with interest at 18% p.a from the date of payment, till realization.  The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.  The Opposite Parties are granted 30 days’ time from the date of this order.  

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 21^st day of October 2016)

        MEMBER                                                MEMBER      

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Nagendra K, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Advocate for Complainant:

1. Original receipt issued by Vivek Enterprises
2. Legal notice dt.18.11.2015
3. Postal receipts and acknowledgement
4. IFB user manual
5. Complaint VIA SMS
6. Photo of the technician repairing the machine
7. Guarantee Card issued by Vivek Enterprises

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex-parte

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                          NIL

MEMBER                                   MEMBER