DATE OF FILING: 11.10.2010
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 17.12.2015
Smt. Minati Pradhan, Member:
Deficiency in service against the Opposite parties is the grievance of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant on 26.6.2007 had purchased a VIDEOCON washing machine vide model No. FA 55 and serial No. 9350900603 from the O.P.No.1 who is the proprietor of M/S Arjyabhatta Doordarshan under proper receipt whose invoice No. 249 dt.26.6.2007 on payment of Rs.8,500/-. The said washing machine was also ensured with its warranty coverage for a period of 24 months from the date of purchase and the O.P. also issued a warranty card in favour of the complainant alongwith that washing machine. After four to five months of the purchase of the said washing machine the complainant noticed some technical defects so as per the terms and conditions of the warranty he immediately reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 for necessary repair of the machine who referred the complainant to the O.P.No.2 and the complainant rushed to the service centre of the O.P.No.2 and narrated all about the defect of the machine and a mechanic came to the house of the complainant and got it repaired. Again when the said machine became defective on 26.7.2008 and on complaint the O.P.No.2 took the machine to his service center vide job card sheet No.2022 and after necessary repair returned the same to the complainant with an assurance that all the defects of the machine have been properly rectified and will not give any defect frequently but to the utter surprise of the complainant again the said machine became defective and got repaired on 8.8.2008 vide job sheet No. 2133 and ultimately became dead on 3.3.2009 so on the plea of some major repair by the company experts the O.P. No.2 managed to take the said machine to his service centre by issuance of a receipt vide job No.520 mentioning the machine dead and did not pay any attention to get the machine repaired rather avoided on different pretext for which the complainant run after him time and again under mental tension. Subsequently he and his family members were compelled to wash their clothes by hand which led towards waist and spinal cord pain for which he has incurred heavy financial loss in treatment and medicines. The said washing machine is with the O.P.No.2 since 3.3.2009 and neither its defects have been rectified nor yet been handed over to the complainant as such he had sent notices to all the O.Ps by Regd. Post with A.D. through his advocate but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to hand over the washing machine of the complainant in good and perfect condition with extended warranty or to replace the same with a new one at his door step alongwith compensation and litigation cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice being served the O.P.No.2 entered its appearance through learned counsel and filed written version. It is stated the allegations made in the complaint petition are all not true and the complainant is put to strict proof of such of the allegations. The allegation of purchase of the washing machine by the complainant from O.P.No.1 is not to the knowledge of this O.P. No.2 as such the former is put to strict proof of the same. The allegations made by the complainant that he rushed to the service centre of the O.P.No.2 just after four to five months of purchase of the washing machine is not admitted by the O.P.No.2. The OP also denies the subsequent repairing of the washing machine and as such the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The O.P.No.2 was the authorized service centre of the Tekcare India Private ltd. (Formerly known as Macotex Consultants pvt. Ltd) by virtue of a Franchises agreement. The said agreement with the O.P.No.2 expired on 31.12.2009 and the O.P.No.2 handed over the service to Tekcare India Private ltd. After expiry of the Franchisee agreement, the complainant brought the washing machine to this O.P.No.2. This O.P. expressed its inability to do any service work in view of the expiration of agreement but the complainant forcibly kept the washing machine with the O.P.No.2 and went away. The allegation that on 3.3.2009 the company experts of this O.P.No.2 managed to take the washing machine to his service centre on the plea of the some major repair is denied by this O.P. This O.P. never issued any such receipt showing the machine “Dead”. The complainant has manufactured the alleged receipt only to make a cause of action for filing this case. All other allegations made in the complaint petition are denied by this O.P.No.2 so far as those relates to him. Moreover the company is not obliged to honor the warranty terms and conditions as the complainant used the machine not as per the instructions given in the owners guide. The alleged defects are not manufacturing defects. There is no cause of action for filing this complaint petition against this O.P.No.2 and the cause of action as mentioned in the petition are imaginary and created only for the purpose of filing of this case. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for as he has not approached this Forum with clean hands.
4. Notices were sent to all the Opposite Parties. Although the Advocate for O.P.No.1 filed Vakalatanama and appeared but not filed any version, hence he is declared exparte. The O.P.No.3 also set exparte.
5. The complainant in support of his case has filed certain documents which are placed on record and marked as Ext. 1 to 6 respectively.
6. We have gone through the case in detail, perused the documents filed by the complainant and heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant at a length. In his complaint petition supported by affidavit the complainant stated that the O.Ps failed to replace the defective washing machine or in alternative to refund the cost of the said washing machine i.e. Rs.8,500/- during the warranty period. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission New Delhi in Dr. Vijai Prakash Goyal versus the Network limited 2006(1) CPR 164 Such as: “ The purchaser of a machine for commercial purpose is also a consumer in case defect in machine develops during the warranty period”. Also another citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in M/s Sony Erisson India Ltd. Versus Shri Ashish Agrawal 2008 (1) CPR 47 such as: - “Where replaced mobile was also defective, State Commission rightly accepted the appeal for refund of the complainant rather than further replacement”. We feel that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
In the result we direct the Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective VIDEOCON washing machine Model No. FA 55 and to supply a new one of the same or in alternative to refund the cost of the said washing machine Rs.8,500/- with 9% per annum from the dates of his complaint i.e. 11.10.2010 till the date of payment to the complainant. The above order should comply by the O.Ps within one month of receipt of this order. No order as to cost and compensation.
The order is pronounced in the open Forum today on 17th December 2015.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
I AGREE (PRESIDENT) MEMBER.
