BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No: 83/2012 Filed on 12/03/2012

Dated : 30..06..2012

Complainant:

Justin. L.J., Nellivila House, Aramada – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 32.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Regional Manager, Whirlpool India Ltd., 39/3521, MG Road, Ravipuram, Cochin – 682 016.

2. Service Manager, Whirlpool India Ltd., Hi Tech Solution, Opp. Ganapathy Covil, Vazhuthacaud – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 23..06..2012 the Forum on 30..06..2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

Complainant had purchased a front loading fully automatic Washing machine on 19/11/2009 from Pangode Military Canteen near Thiruvananthapuram, Make - Whirlpool, Sl.No. INF 094501137 Model No.11328, Model – PUM 701. The above machine showed working problem due to its manufacturing defect on September 2011 and the matter was informed to 2^nd opposite party in time. After site testing, 2^nd opposite party retained the machine in their custody for repair which is within the stipulated two years warranty period. But the opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to repair or replace the same model till date. After four months lapse, in January 2012, 2^nd opposite party informed him that the production of the model purchased has been stopped. So 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties together offered and installed another low cost top loading Washing Machine after collecting a total amount of Rs.650/- from him towards freight and other levies. But unfortunately the second machine also went out of order at the time of installation itself. But the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties denied to rectify the fault till date. On continuous telephonic talk 2^nd opposite party informed that as the warranty of the machine expired, they cannot repair or replace the machine free of cost. The inacurate stand taken by the opposite parties in this regard is truly unbearable. The action of opposite parties 1 & 2 amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite parties remain ex-parte.

Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P4.

3. The issues for consideration are :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

4. Points (i) & (ii): The purchase of Washing machine on 19/11/2009 is proved by Ext. P1. The Ext. P2 provides warranty for 2 years. Complainant alleges that the machine became defective during warranty period itself, that is from 9/11 itself and hence the same was replaced by the opposie party with a low cost top loading washing machine after collecting an amount of Rs.650/-. Complainant further pleads that the said machine also became defective during the warranty period and the opposite parties have not bothered to replace or rectify the same. Opposite parties inspite of acceptance of notice from the Forum has not filed their version. Opposite parties have not denied the allegations levelled against them. Complainant has not been cross examined by opposite parties. Hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. In the above circumstance we find that the allegation levelled against opposite parties in the complaint as proved.

5. Since the Washing machines have become defective during the warranty period, the inference is that complainant has been supplied with defective machine or an old one sold as a new one. This is a fraud committed by opposite parties. So the Washing machine has to be replaced with a new one. But in the case of replacement, the opposite parties cannot be relied on and so it is better that the opposite parties shall refund the price. The Washing machines have been in imperfect service within warranty period itself, but the complainant could use the 1^st machine for about 1 ½ years. Hence after deducting Rs. 5,000/- towards depreciation we allow Rs.14,000/- towards price of the Washing machine. For the loss of pleasure caused by defective Washing machine, the complainant has to be compensated and we allow Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay Rs.14,000/- along with Rs.4,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the Order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of June, 2012. sd/-

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

ad. BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER.

C.C.No: 83/2012

APPENDIX

I. Complainant’s documents:

P1 : Bill No. 35030 dated 19/11/2009 issued by NON CSD Station Canteen, Pangode, Thiruvananthapuram.

P2 : Warranty card

P3 : Collection / delivery note dated 20/10/2011 issued by Hi-Tech Solution

P4 : User Manual

II. Complainant’s witness : NIL

III. Opposite parties’ documents : NIL

IV. Opposite parties’ witness : NIL

sd/-

PRESIDENT