SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to cure all the defects of the washing machine or to pay Rs.21,500/- as the value of the washing machine with 10% interest from the date of complaint and to pay compensation for the mental agony of the complainant for Rs.2,00,000/- along with Rs.1,00,000/- in convenience caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part.
The case of the complainant in brief
The complainant had purchased the Bosch W/M WAB 16060 IN-84501100 washing machine from OP No.1 on 26/08/2017 for an amount of Rs.21,500/-. At the time of purchasing the washing machine the advertisement and the representation made by the OPs that the said washing machine is free from any defects and the best product of OP No.2 available in the market. The OPs also offered urgent and timely after sale service and assured the replacement of all warranty items. OP No.2 assured 57 to 64 liters of water capacity to the machine and the 60 liters of water consumption per wash. But the washing machine could not load not more than 38 liters and the same way it lacks specification which ultimately offered by the manufacturer. The complainant had serious allegations of detergent issues, which is not suppose to be raised with regard to any washing machine, which may cause serious bodily injuries. The complainant was curious to check all that specification due to the allergic issue of his child. Then on 27/04/2018 the complainant informed the matter to OP No.2 and the complaint was made under reference No. 472490946 and the service personal visited on 30/04/2018. The complainant described the problems regarding the cleaning and detergent issues, service personal made a suggestion to increase the water level, which was not even possible for more than 38 litters. But the service personal could not solve the problem. Thereafter on 18/08/2018 another complaint was booked under reference No.472513738. Then on 27/08/2018 the complainant again contacted the service personal but they are not turned up and not solved the problem also. Again on March 2019 also the complainant filed a complaint with reference NO.0472563191. But the service persons are totally avoiding the grievance of the complainant. The complainant states that he is residing at abroad with his family and occasionally he visited India and during his visit he trying to contact the OP to cure the defects of the washing Machine. But the OPs are not ready to cure the defects of the washing machine. The act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice issued to all OPs. OP No.1 received the notice and not appeared before the commission and called absent and set ex-parte. OP 2 appeared before the commission and filed his written version contending that he is not the manufacture of the product and filed petition to remove the name form the party array. Then the petition allowed by the commission and OP No.3 may be impleaded as the additional OP. Then OP No.2’s name removed and OP No.3 inserted as OP NO.2 He contended that on 28/04/2018 the machine was duly checked by the technician of this OP and some program error was detected which was immediately resolved by re-setting the programme after the washing machine was performed and the same was working absolutely. ON 27/11/2018 also the technician inspected the machine and inlet valve of the washing machine is replaced and thereafter the machine was working perfectly. On 29/12/2018 the complaint lodged regarding wash quality after which the technician found that water pressure at the inlet is only 0. 8 bar where as for the optimum water pressure required for proper wash quality is 1 bar. The technician checked machine with cotton 30 programme and collect 38 liters of water from outlet during drawing which is as per the requirement of selected programmed as per operating manual. The maximum pressure of the water coming out from the pipe should be above 1 Kg/cm, but nowhere in the used manual of the machine modle number is WAB1606PIN mentioned about it. The complainant has failed to understand the correct technical functioning of the machine where as there was no manufacturing defect in the washing machine. So there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2. So the OP No.2 is not held liable for the same and the liability of OP NO.2 may be dismissed. Thereafter on 01/02/2022 the complainant filed a petition before the commission to appoint an expert commissioner to check the water capacity of washing machine and detergent issue of the clothes after the wash. One Mr. Abdul Nizar P K, mechanic is appointed as the expert. He inspected the mechanic is 2 times and Ext.C1 and C2 report also filed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext. A1 to A4 and Ext.C1 and C2 were marked. On OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence. Both sides filed argument notes also.
Issue No.1
The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by the OPNo.2. Pw1 relied upon Ext.A1 to A4 documents to substantiate his case. According to him on 26/08/2017 .he purchased from a Bosch WAB 16060IN – 84501100 washing machine, from OP No.1 for an amount Rs.21,500/- that shows in Ext.A1 document. In Ext. A2 is the user manual supplied by OP No.1 along with the washing machine. OP No.1 explained to the complainant that the machine is free from all manufacturing defect and the best product. In Ext. A2 also contains that “Filter in the water supply & additional functioning information”. As per Ext.A2, the machine should consume 57 liters of water in each full wash cycle with was selection as “cold cotton” but the machine is consuming only a maximum of 38 liters of water is each full wash cycle. The complainant also had serious allegations of detergent issue which may cause serious skin allergic issues. In the evidence of Pw1 he deposed before the Hon’ble commission that “ഈ washing machine തുണികൾ അലക്കിയത് ഉപയോഗിച്ചപ്പോൾ നിങ്ങൾക്ക് skin allergy ഉണ്ടായി എന്നതാണ് പരാതി? അതെ. നിങ്ങളുടെ നിഗമനം മാത്രമാണെന്നും നിങ്ങൾ വിദഗ്ധ ഡോക്ടറെ കാണിക്കുകയോ, അഭിപ്രായം ആരായുകയോ ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല? ഉപയോഗിച്ചപ്പോഴാണ് skin allergy വന്നത്. ഉപയോഗിക്കാതിരുന്നപ്പോൾ വന്നിട്ടില്ല.” But the complainant has not produced any document to prove that he and his child is suffering from any kind of allergy. In Ext. A3 is the job sheet dated 30/04/2018 noted the fault report as ‘not cleaning’ and stated that water level to be increased it help to clean the dress well. But the defect is not cured by the OP. Then the complainant send a mail to OP’s service centre dated 12/01/2019 regarding the water capacity and 60 liters of water consumption per wash. Then the complainant filed a petition before the commission to appoint an expert to check the water capacity of the washing machine and the occurrence of foam also. The expert inspected the washing machine on 06/10/2022 and 04/02/2023 and report marked as Ext.C1 & C2. As per Ext.A2 the user manual provided by OP NO.2 had specified that the total collection of water during full wash cycle of the machine model No.WAB16060 IN as 57 liters. But the machine could not hold more than 38 liters of water. The service personnel were unable to fix the issue and he himself recommended increasing the water level. The maximum pressure of the water coming out from the pipe should be above 1Kg/cm. But nowhere in the used manual of the machine model number WAB16060IN is mentioned about it . In Ext.C2 report the pressure of the water coming out from the pipe was above 1 and it was recorded as 2.1Kg/cm. As the pressure was above 1 itself, still the machine could not hold more than 42 liters of water in full wash cycle. The Ext.C2 report also noted that the foam coming out from the machine after the wash. Foam occurred only because the machine could not held water capacity as mentioned in the user manual. But the OPs are not cured the defect in the warranty period. So the act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. We hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 &3
As discussed above the OPs are not ready to cure the defects of the washing machine to the complainant. The complainant produced Ext.A1 document which clearly shows that the complainant has paid Rs.21,500/- to OP No.1. According to the complainant as per Ext.A2 document specified that the total collection of water during the full wash cycle of the machine model number WAB16060IN as 57 liters. But the machine could not hold more than 38 liters of water. Moreover the expert inspection the pressure of the water coming out from the pipe was above 1 and it was recorded as 2.1Kg/cm. As the pressure was above 1 itself still the machine could not hold more than 42 liters of water in full wash cycle. According to the complainant failure to provide the repaired washing machine the OPs are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OPs are jointly & severally liable to pay the value of washing machine Rs.21,500/- to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2 &3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the value of washing machine Rs.21,500/- to the complainant along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs. 21,500/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. After the said proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the washing machine from the complainant.
Exts.
A1- Invoice dated 26/08/2017
A2- User manual
A3-Job Sheet dated 30/04/2018
A4- Print out e-mail
C1-Expert report dated 06/10/2022
C2-Expert report dated 023/03/2023
Pw1- Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
