CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 13/11/2013
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC.190/2013
Sunitha.M,
W/o.Ravindranathan,
Gokulam, Edathara Post, Palakkad. : Complainant
(By Adv.K.K.Menon, A.B.Prasad)
Vs
1. Rajeev Kapur,
Vice President Marketing,
Whirlpool Of India Limited,
Corporate office, Plot No.40,
Sector-44, Gurgaon-122002
2. Proprietor,
M/s.Mahalakshmi Traders, : Opposite parties
Parali, Palakkad – 678 612.
3. Jyotsna, Care Manager,
Whirlpool Of India Limited,
39/3521, M.G.Road, Ravipuram,
Ernakulam, Cochin – 682 016.
(By Adv.G.Abilash)
O R D E R
By Smt. Shiny.P.R, Member.
Brief facts of the complaint: - The complainant has purchased a Whirlpool washing machine which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.12,200/- on 8-9-2011. Within few days the machine with the problem of the motor. Immediately it was reported to opposite parties and motor was changed within the 10 days. Again this same problem arised and motor and the panel board was changed, subsequently many other problems popped up and it was informed to the opposite parties, but it was not solved by them. Altogether 7 complaints were admitted by the company within few days. The complainant submitted that he was enchanted by treacherous advertisement. On 12-5-2013 complainant sent a lawyer notice through his advocate to the opposite parties. Even after the receipt of the notice the opposite parties are not ready and willing to replace the machine or refund the amount. Subsequently Opposite parties informed the complainant that they are ready for a settlement by replacing the machine, provided the complainant pays Rs.2,000/- towards warranty and Rs.1,500/- towards transportation. Complainant further submitted that after the purchase all together the machine has worked only for a period of 6 months in different intermittent periods. The warranty period is for 2 years. Still the machine is covered under warranty period. So even after purchase of the machine the complainant had to wash the cloth manually for the last 18 months. The opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by not attending the defects and not replacing the defective machine with a good working fresh piece. More over the opposite parties has committed unfair trade practice by giving wrong baseless treacherous advertisement in Newspapers and in user manual. Hence the complaint.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued for appearance of opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed their version.
The contentions in their version are as follows. The allegation of defects of the motor of the washing machine within 10 days of its purchase is denied by the opposite parties. Complainant is not at all entitled to get any relief, except to repair the machine and rectify its defects. The opposite parties are always ready and willing for that. The opposite party has provided only limited warranty to the product. Warranty is always attached and is encumbered with specific conditions. The complainant is also required and bound to follow the terms and conditions of warranty without any violation. Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of warranty. So the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of warranty. These opposite parties have no liability to replace the machine or refund the amount to the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Expert commissioner was appointed and he filed the report stating that the washing machine was not in working condition.
The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of his chief affidavit and Ext. A1 to A4. Opposite parties have filed chief affidavit. The commission report was marked as Ext.C1
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite
parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
ISSUE 1&2
We have perused the documents on record. Ext.A1 document is the evidence for the purchase of washing machine from the opposite parties. In Ext.A4 Reply notice the opposite parties admitted the defects of washing machine. They admitted the fact that 7 complaints were registered with them, they replaced the motor twice and PCB once. The other two complaints were due to water leakage caused by deposit of waste inside the valve and a hole in the outlet hose. The last and final compliant was on 26-2-2013. And that was rectified. It is a clear proof that there are some defects in the washing machine from the very beginning of its purchase. Failure of the motor and PCB within few months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defect. Moreover the expert commissioner filed report stating that the washing machine was not in working condition. It is the bounden duty of both the manufacturer and dealer to attend the defects free of cost. If they are not in a position to do so, they should either refund the cost of the washing machine or provide a new one. This reply notice was sent on 20-5-2013 which was within the period of two years of purchase i.e. within the warranty period. Opposite parties submitted that Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of warranty. They have not adduced any evidence to prove their contention. Hence the opposite parties are responsible for their acts.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence we allow the complaint. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay cost of washing machine Rs. 12,200/- ,(Rupees Twelve thousand two hundred only), Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four Thousand only) to the Complainant. The complainant shall return the washing machine to opposite parties on execution of order.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of December, 2014.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma K.P Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of the bill dated 8/09/2011 Mahalakshmi Traders given to the complainant
Ext.A2 - Warranty Card of Whirlpooldtd.8/9/2011.
Ext.A3- Lawyer notice dtd.12/5/2012 from K.K.Menon Advocate to opposite parties and acknowledgement card
Ext.A4- Reply notice dtd.20/05/2013 from Adv.Biju Hariharan to Adv.K.M.Menon
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Nil
Ext C1- Commission Report filed by Satheesh Krishnan G, Asst.Professor, N.S.S.College.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four Thousand only)
