CC Filed on 20.07.2009<br /> Disposed on 07.01.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 07th day of January 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 51/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. S. Shobharani,<br /> W/o. Balamurali,<br /> Aged about 40 years,<br /> Residing at Rajanamma Building,<br /> 2nd cross, Opp. RTO Office,<br /> Bangarpet Road,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. J. Nataraj & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Rakesh Electronics and Home Appliances,<br /> Represented by its Proprietor,<br /> Doddapet (Big Bajar),<br /> M.G. Road Cross,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. P. Shivaram Subramanyam & others) <br /> <br /> 2. IFB Industries Limited,<br /> (Home Appliances Division)<br /> No.17, Vishweshwaraiah Industrial Estate Off.<br /> Whitefield Road,<br /> Mahadevapura Post,<br /> Bangalore – 560 048. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to replace the washing machine and to pass such other suitable orders in the circumstances of the case. <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows from the pleadings and documents of complainant:<br /> That the complainant purchased IFB washing machine for Rs.12,000/- under cash bill/tax invoice bearing No. 402 dated 18.10.2008 from OP.1 who was authorized dealer of the said washing machine manufactured by OP.2. OP.1 issued warranty card and assured that the washing machine purchased was free from defects in workmanship and materials and during 24 months from the date of purchase of the said washing machine all the parts of the washing machine which prove to be defective in workmanship and/ or materials shall be replaced or repaired free of charge on intimation to the company/company’s authorized service centre nearest to the place where the appliance was installed. The complainant paid installation charges of Rs.300/- to OP.2 under receipt dated 21.10.2008. Thereafter the washing machine was installed by the technician sent by OP.2 on the same day. <br /> <br /> It is alleged that after some days of its installation the washing machine was found defective and not functioning properly and the complainant approached OP.1 for replacing or repairing the washing machine but he did not care to comply with the request. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 05.06.2009 to OP.1 and he did not reply the said notice inspite of the receipt of the said notice. <br /> <br /> Originally the complaint was filed only against OP.1. Subsequently OP.2 is impleaded as it was found to be the necessary party. Though the complaint was initially presented by an Advocate subsequently the complainant herself conducted her case without the help of any Advocate. <br /> <br /> 3. OP.1 appeared and filed version. He has not disputed the purchase of IFB washing machine by complainant and its installation and issue of warranty for 24 months from the date of purchase of the washing machine. He denied that the complainant had approached him after some days from the date of purchase of washing machine and complained that it was not working properly and he did not made any proper reply. He denied the service of legal notice dated 05.06.2009 on him. He contended that as per warranty card the company was/is ready to replace or repair free of charge the defective parts on intimation to the company or company’s authorized service centre subject to the limitation contained in the warranty. Further he contended that there was no term agreed in the warranty for replacement of entire washing machine, but the company was liable to replace or repair only the defective parts. Further OP.1 stated that he would comply with any orders to repair the washing machine or to do service of the machine, but there is no provision to replace the machine. Therefore he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. After impleading OP.2, notice was sent to it along with copy of complaint and other documents through RPAD. The postal acknowledgement of service was not received in this office. The complainant stated that OP.2 had contacted over phone with some proposal after sending the notice. Therefore service of notice on OP.2 was taken as sufficient. OP.2 was absent. However a date was given for filing version. Even on the adjourned date OP.2 was absent and version was not filed. OP.1 also remained absent during arguments. <br /> <br /> 5. We heard the complainant. She stated that her money may be ordered to be refunded with compensation because of the long delay in effecting the repair or replacement of defective parts.<br /> <br /> 6. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: Whether there is deficiency in service by OPs?<br /> Point No.2: If so, to what order?<br /> <br /> 7. After considering the pleadings and the submissions of the complainant our finding on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: The cash bill dated 18.10.2008 issued by OP.1 contains a note that warrantee/guarantee is on behalf of manufacturing company and for availing warranty authorized service centre is to be contacted. The warranty card produced by complainant also shows that IFB Industries Limited (the company) i.e. OP.2 warrants to the original purchaser of washing machine that it is free from defects in workmanship and materials and during 24 months from the date of purchase of new washing machine all the parts of the washing machine which prove to be defective in workmanship and/or materials shall be replaced or repaired free of charge on intimation to the company/or company’s authorized service centre nearest to the place where the appliance is installed. The complainant appears to have not made any complaint regarding the non-functioning of washing machine to company or its authorized service centre. However after impleading OP.2 and service of notice on it, it should have come forward to replace or repair the defective parts as per the warranty terms. But it remained absent and did not communicate its intention to effect repair or replace the defective parts. Therefore one can say that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. <br /> <br /> So far as OP.1 is concerned, he is authorized dealer of IFB Industries Limited which manufacturers washing machines. When he is a dealer and sold the washing machine and issued the warranty card to complainant he should have helped the complainant in arranging for repair of the washing machine whenever defect in it was intimated to him. The complainant stated that within few days from the date of purchase, the machine was found not functioning and she made complaint before OP.1 but he did not give any proper reply. OP.1 denied that complainant approached him and even he denied the receipt of legal notice. In such circumstance the complainant must have approached OP.1 and the issue of legal notice and its service on OP.1 is proved by the acknowledgement of service issued by the Professional Courier through which the notice was sent. Therefore the say of OP.1 that complainant had not approached him and he had not received any legal notice appears to be not true. The legal notice is dated 05.06.2009. Even in this notice it is alleged that after some days of the installation of washing machine it was not functioning. Therefore OP.1 was also negligent in discharging his duties towards his customer. <br /> <br /> For the above reasons point No.1 is held in affirmative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2: The complainant spent Rs.12,300/- for purchase and installation of washing machine, but she could not use it for almost whole period after its purchase on 18.10.2008. Therefore we think compensation of Rs.1,500/-may be awarded apart from ordering to repay Rs.12,300/- to complainant. OP.1 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- and OP.2 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and repayment of Rs.12,300/- apart from paying the costs of this proceedings. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP.2 (IFB Industries Limited) shall repay Rs.12,300/- and compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- to complainant. OP.1 shall pay compensation of Rs.500/- to complainant. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of this order. In default the amount payable shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of default till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> On compliance of the order the OPs are entitled to take back the washing machine in question from complainant. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 07th day of January 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />