DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 05/10/2021
CC 161/2021
Shabitha. V. M,
D/O. C. M. Jameela,
Kannampara, Puthukode, P. O.
Alathur Thaluk, Palakkad, 678 687 - Complainant
(By Adv. K.P.Nouphal)
V/S
1. Reliance Retail Ltd,
Reliance Digital, M20,
Stadium Bypass Road,
Kunnathurmedu
Palakkad Taluk – 678 001
Represented by it's Manager.
2. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd,
Appliances Division, Plant 11,
Pirojsha Nagar, Vikhroli West,
Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 079
Represented by it's Manager. - Opposite parties
(By Adv. M. K. Sheela)
ORDER
By Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant
The complainant purchased a Godrej washing machine (Model WSEDGE ULTS 80 5.0 DB 2M capacity 8 Kg) manufactured by second opposite party, from their first opposite party dealer on 02/04/2021 for a price of Rs. 16490/-. She has also paid Rs. 1200/- as delivery charges.
On 18/06/2021, ie. Within 76 days of purchase, the product became functionless, because of it's defective motor and mechanical parts, which was intimated to the first opposite party on 19/06/2021. They informed the complainant that they will register a complaint with the Customer Care Centre of the second opposite party.
However, there was no response from the Customer Care Centre. Instead, the technicians of the Opposite parties inspected the product and told that the motor of the machine is defunct and the same is having manufacturing defect and hence require replacement. Hence, the complainant returned the washing machine to the first opposite party on 14/08/2021, spending Rs. 1200/- as auto charges and asked for replacement. The first opposite party has neither given any receipt for the same nor replaced the product so far. Another allegation is that the first opposite party forced her to purchase a Whirlpool brand washing machine from Bismi Connect, paying a sum of Rs. 14901/-
So the complainant has approached this Commission seeking the following reliefs.
- Replacement of the defective washing machine or refund of the
original cost price.
- Rs. 2400/- towards the auto charges incurred.
- Rs. 10000/ for mental agony, loss and compensation for deficiency in
service and
- Cost.
2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. In between, an expert commissioner was appointed as per the request of the complainant to inspect the product in question. The Commissioner filed his report on 26/01/2021.
3. The opposite parties filed their version. The first opposite party, while admitting the transaction, denied all other allegations. According to them, it is clearly mentioned at the back of the bill that replacement is permitted only in case of non-functioning of the machine within 7 days of purchase. They had given the bill and the user manual to the complainant. The warranty conditions and safety instructions are given in the last page of the user manual. She had gone through them at the time of purchase. The version of the second opposite party claim that after sales service have been attended by them as per the terms of warranty.
4. Issues involved:
A. Whether the complainant has proved that the appliance suffers from
Manufacturing defect?
B. Whether there is any other unfair trade practice on the part of opposite
parties.
C. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
D. Reliefs if any.
5. The complainant and opposite parties have neither filed Proof Affidavit
nor marked any documents as evidence. The Report of the Expert
Commissioner has not been objected by either side. As the complainant
has been continuously absent for the proceedings, the complaint is taken for
Orders based on merits.
6. Issue: A
In the absence of Proof Affidavit and marked documents, the only evidence available to this Commission is the report of the Expert Commissioner submitted on 26/11/2021. In the report he has certified that "As such the washing machine appeared to be fully functional on the date of inspection", based on no-load operation. Further, he has gone through the manual and the warranty details and confirms that "the company's obligation under warranty shall be limited to repair or providing replacement of parts only”. As per the report, he has also verified the soft copy of the work memo provided by the first opposite party and found that the spin motor of the machine has been replaced, which testifies the successful no-load operation of the washing machine and the type of work carried out as per the memo is in line with the warranty details in the user manual. Hence the issue of manufacturing defect is not proved.
7. Issue: B & C
In the absence of any evidence to prove that the machine is having any manufacturing defect or to show the failure of the opposite parties in providing after sales service as per warranty terms, we can't say that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 9th day of December, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant - NIL
Documents marked from the side of the Opposite parties - NIL
Witness examined from the side of the complainant – NIL
Witness examined from the side of the opposite parties - NIL
Cost - NIL
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
