Andhra Pradesh

Cuddapah

CC/10/55

V.Gouri Sankar Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Sumpreet Electronics and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

02 Aug 2010

ORDER


District Consumer Forum
Collect orate Compound, Kadapa
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/55

V.Gouri Sankar Reddy
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sai Sumpreet Electronics and 2 others
Adinarayana Reddy
Branch service Manager
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.Sireesha 2. Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao 3. Sri.S.A.Khader Basha

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. V.Gouri Sankar Reddy

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Sai Sumpreet Electronics and 2 others 2. Adinarayana Reddy 3. Branch service Manager

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Party in Person

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT
                                SRI S.A. KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER.
                                SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., MEMBER
                           
      Monday, 2nd August 2010
                                  CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 55 / 2010
 
Sri V. Gouri Sankar Reddy, S/o late V. Jayarami Reddy,
Age 37 years, FLAT # 59, JAY R ENCLAVE,
H.No.7/156-A, N.G.O.Colony,
CUDDAPAH.                                                                                      …Complainant
                                                              Vs.
 
1)     Sai Sumpreet Electronics,
# 3/161, Chiristan Lane,
Cuddapah -516 001.
 
2)     Lakshmi Agencies, Rep. by Adinarayana Reddy,
Shop No./1, Municipal Complex,
Park Road, Kurnool-518 001.
 
3)     Brach Service Manager,
Whirlpool of India Limited (WOIL),
156, 157, & 168, Kompally (V),
Qutballapur (M), Secunderabad.                                    …..Respondents.
 
          This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 2-8-2010 in the presence of complainant as in person and respondents are called asbent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),                                        
 
1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant purchased one Whirlpool washing machine, top door Model White Magic FSAH801/CR for Rs. 22,000/- under model No. 11306, serial No. INF083900300 on 23-1-2009 from R1 with two years warranty from the date of purchase.   In April 2010 the washing machine gave trouble with continuous beep on electronic display showing on error E2. The complainant approached R1 for conducting repairs. As the complainant was presently residing at Kurnool, the R1 gave a local Whirlpool authorized service center address, who was R2. On 25-4-2010 the complainant approached R2, who came to the house of the complainant on 27-4-2010 and inspected the washing machine and informed to replace a part on the next day. But R2 did not turnup for 5 days. Again the complainant approached the R2 on 2-5-2010, who informed that it would be replaced by evening. However, for another 7 days the R2 did not turnup to conduct the repairs by replacement of part. On 15-5-2010 the complainant called R3, who was manufacturer of the company by phone and lodged a complaint S.R. No. HD0510008833 and also informed that he approached the local authorized service center, who failed to conduct the repairs. The R3 promised to arrange the authorized service center mechanic within two days to conduct the repairs.   On 17-5-2010 the complainant again called the R3, who informed that he would arrange in a day to conduct the repairs. But he did not send the mechanic. On 21-5-2010 again the R3 was contacted the authorized service center mechanic visited on 23-5-2010 the hosue of the complainant and expressed his inability to findout the reasons for the problem. Therefore, it was completely a negligent attitude of R2 and R3, who took 20 days time for sending mechanic and ultimately failed to findout the problem. Therefore, the complaint was filed for refund of Rs. 22,000/- or to replace with new washing machine together with interest @ 24% from 23-1-2010 till realization and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. 
 
3.                Notices were served to R1 to R3 to appear on 12-7-2010. Though the notices were served R1 to R3 they did not represent and so they were set exparte on   23-7-2010 and the complainant’s evidence was recorded on 2-8-2010. 
4.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 
i.                   Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents?
ii.                 Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
iii.              To what relief?
 
6.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 & A2 were marked and PW1 was examined.      
 
7.                Point No. 1& 2.   The complainant purchased one Whirlpool Washing machine, top door model White Magic FSAH801/CR for Rs. 22,000/- with model No. 11306 and Serial No. INF083900300, on 23-1-2009 from R1, at Kadapa under Ex. A1. Ex. A1 was Photostat copy of cash bill. The R1 issued warranty card also. Ex. A2 was Photostat copy of warranty card. Subsequently in April 2010 the washing machine gave trouble inside with continuous beep electronic display showing error E2 and did not function.   By then the complainant was residing at Kurnool. However, he approached the R1, who gave the address of the authorized service center at Kurnool. The complainant approached R2 at Kurnool on 25-4-2010. The R2 visited the hosue of the complainant on 27-4-2010 and checked and informed to replace a part on the next day. But the R2 did not turn up by sending the mechanic to replace a part inspite of the complainant’s approach to R2. Even on 2-5-2010 there was no response from R2. Atlast the complainant approached the R3 on  15-5-2010 by phone and lodged a complaint in S.R. No. HDO510008833, who informed to send the mechanic from the authorized service center.  But he did not turnup. Again on 17-5-2010 the complainant gave a call to R3 to send the mechanic. Again on 21-5-2010 the complainant called R3 and atlast on 23-5-2010 the mechanic came to the house of the complainant and informed that he could not able to findout the reasons of the problem.    So the complainant suffered much mengal agony due to negligent attitude of the Respondents 2 & 3. It was deificiency of service. Therefore, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Ex. A1 and A2 were marked. Perused the complaint and affidavit and documents.   The complaint is allowed directing the R1 to replace the washing machine of the complainant with a new one after collecting the same from the complainant with costs of R1 and replace the new machine within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The R1, R2 & R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 500/- towards costs payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Thus the points are answered accordingly. 
 
8.               Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the R1 to replace the washing machine of the complainant with a new one after collecting the same from the complainant with costs of R1 and replace the new machine within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) towards costs payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
 Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 2nd August 2010
 
 
              
MEMBER                                   MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT     
                                              APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant    NIL                                                  For Respondent :     NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -  
 
Ex. A1         P/c of cash / credit bill No. 4723, dt. 23-1-2009 issued by R1.
Ex. A2         P/c of warranty card issued by R1.
Exhibits marked for Respondents : -          ---- NIL -----
 
 
 
MEMBER                                   MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT
Copy to                        
     ­           1) Sri V. Gouri Sankar Reddy, S/o late V. Jayarami Reddy,
 FLAT # 59, JAY R ENCLAVE,
 H.No.7/156-A, N.G.O.Colony, CUDDAPAH.
      2) Sai Sumpreet Electronics, # 3/161, Chiristan e Lane,
          Cuddapah -516 001.
               3) Lakshmi Agencies, Rep. by Adinarayana Reddy,
          Shop No./1, Municipal Complex, Park Road, Kurnool- 001.
           4) Brach Service Manager, Whirlpool of India Limited (WOIL),
         156,157,& 168, Kompally (V), Qutballapur (M), Secunderabad.                
    
            1) Copy was made ready on:
2) Copy was dispatched on:
            3) Copy was delivered to parties:
B.V.P.                                               - - -



......................K.Sireesha
......................Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao
......................Sri.S.A.Khader Basha