By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.The complaint in short is as follows: -
On 16/06/2017, complainant had purchased one washing machine worth Rs. 25,047.94/- of Samsung Company from opposite party No.2, the Police canteen. At the time of purchasing the washing machine, opposite parties assured three years full warranty for the machine and provided a warranty card for the same. But on 2020 February, there was some alarming sound came out of the washing machine during working of the machine and on March 2020 complainant called the opposite party to inform about this sound. Complainant was complained about this to the customer care of opposite party No.1. Thereafter a mechanic of opposite party No.1 came to complainant’s house and inspected the washing machine. After inspection the mechanic said that, the defect caused to complainant’s washing machine could not be rectified from the house and he informed the complainant that one person from the service centre will come to complainant's house and take the washing machine for repair.
2. But till 15/11/2020 there was no response from opposite parties and on that day some persons from opposite party No.3 service centre came to complainant’s house and taken the washing machine to their service centre. But at the time of taking the washing machine they said to complainant that the warranty period of washing machine was over and directed the complainant to pay Rs.5000/- for repairing the washing machine. Complainant again stated that, he had informed the opposite parties before the expiry of warranty period and a mechanic came to complainant’s house and he realised the defects. But after 8 - 9 months opposite parties came to complainant’s house to take the washing machine for repair. It is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Due to the deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties, complainant had lost warranty benefits of his washing machine. Hence this complaint. The above act of opposite parties caused mental agony and hardship to complainant. Moreover the above washing machine which is manufactured by opposite party No.1 is a substandard quality item and the performance is also very poor.
3. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get a full refund of Rs.25,047.94/- with 12% interest or the washing machine with same specification needs to be replaced, Rs.25,000/-as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings of the complainant, Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings, Rs. 5000/- for future conducting of the case and he also prayed for a direction to opposite parties by the Commission to repair the washing machine emergently for using the complainant till the disposal of case.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and
notice served on them and opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version. But opposite party No.3 did not appear before the Commission. Hence opposite party No.3 set exparte.
5. In their version opposite party No.1 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. They again stated that they serves their customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also enable most impeccable after sale service. They again stated that the complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product, but the alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submission of complainant and needs a
proper analysis test report to confirm the same. In the absence of any technical
report on record, the complaint deserves dismissal on that ground alone.
6. In their version, opposite party admitted that on 16/06/2017 complainant had purchased a washing machine worth Rs.25,047.94/- having three year warranty from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1. They again stated that as per the records of the company, in the month of March 2020, the complainant reported vibration issue which is after two years and 9 months from the date of purchase. The said complaint was duly registered and technician visited the house of the complainant and on examination, he was informed to take the unit to the service centre. But thereafter lock-down was declared and hence it was not able to take back the unit for service. But ultimately in the month of November 2020 the unit was taken to service centre and on examination it was found complaint on drum and that was required to be replaced. As the warranty period was already over, the complainant was informed to pay charges and accordingly an estimate of repair was also given. But complainant was not amenable for repair on chargeable basis but demanding free of cost repair that was not possible as per the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the unit.
7. They again submitted that warranty never expired due to the act of this opposite party. But it was expired in the month of June 2020. Even after there was no response from the complainant regarding any complaint and hence this opposite party was on the impression that the complaint might have been cured. The complaint occurred is not under warranty limit, the company ready to do the chargeable service since warranty not applicable. But the complainant demanding replace and seeking unlawful compensation from the company which is legally not binding. As per the terms of the warranty policy, only issues arising within the scope of warranty will be repaired free of cost and all repairs which comes within the warranty period will be repaired free of cost and all repairs. In this case the service centre was ready to render better service within the scope of warranty and even now to provide service on cost, but complainant is not ready for that. There is no manufacturing defect on the unit. The prayers of the complainant are wrong and he is not entitled to get the compensation or the cost of the proceedings. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
8. In their version, opposite party No.2 stated that they are conducting a canteen at Malappuram Police Camp and they are selling so many electronic items and other consumer products. They are also admitted that they sold a washing machine worth Rs.25,047.94/- to complainant having three years warranty. The product manufacturers of the electronic items sometimes appoint their executives in the canteen for giving information about their product to consumers. Opposite party No. 2 had no knowledge about the product and there is no such custom in their police canteen to canvass the consumers to by the products. If any defect caused to the products selling through their police canteen, it is the duty of manufacturing company to rectify the defect of the product and it is also their duty to give warranty, guarantee to the consumers. Hence they are not liable to compensate the complainant.
9. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the duplicate bill given by opposite party No.2 to complainant while purchasing the washing machine and some other products. Ext.A2 is the original warranty card given by opposite party No.1 to complainant, Ext.A3 is the CD which contains the conversation between complainant and opposite party No.3. Thereafter opposite party No.1 filed affidavit and documents they filed were marked as Ext. B1 and B2. Ext. B1 is the Power of Attorney, Ext. B2 is the warranty card. Opposite party No.2 also filed affidavit but no documents filed and marked.
10. Heard complainant and opposite party No.1 and 2. Perused affidavits and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
- If so, reliefs and cost.
11. Point No.1 & 2:-
Complainant contended that he had purchased a Samsung washing machine from opposite party No.2 on 16/06/2017 for Rs.25,047.94/- having 3 year warranty. But in the month of March 2020 the unit got dyfunct and complainant timely informed this to opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 taken the washing machine into his service centre for repair only on 15/11/2020. Opposite party No.1 and 3 demanded R.5000/- for repairing the washing machine because the warranty period was already over.
12. But opposite party No.1 said that in the month of March 2020 complainant reported vibration issue which is after two years and 9 months from the date of purchase. But due to lock down, they were not able to take the unit for service and
the month of November 2020, opposite party No.3 taken the washing machine for
service on chargeable basis.
13. In the above matter both complainant and opposite party No.1 and 2 also admitted that complainant had purchased the above washing machine from opposite party No.2 on 16/06/2017 for Rs. 25,047.94/- which is manufactured by opposite party No1. Ext. A1, the duplicate copy of bill clearly shows that complainant had purchased Samsung washing machine worth Rs. 25,047.94/- on 16/06/2017 from opposite party No.2. As per Ext.A2, the warranty card clearly shows that the washing machine had three years warranty. Moreover opposite party No.1 also admitted that the washing machine which is manufactured by them is having three years warranty. Opposite party No.1 the manufacturer also submitted Ext.B2 document the warranty card which also shows that the washing machine had three years warranty. From the above facts we are on the opinion that complainant purchased the above washing machine having three years warranty from opposite party No.2 the police canteen which was manufactured by opposite party No.1 and which was repaired by opposite party No.3 .
14. One of the contentions of complainant is that in the month of February 2020,
some sound came out of the washing machine and complainant complained about this to the customer care of opposite party No.1. After inspection opposite party No.3 informed the complainant that the defect caused to the washing machine could not be rectified from complainant’s house. So one person from the service centre will take the washing machine from complainant’s house for repair but nobody approached complainant till 15/11/2020. In that point opposite party No.1 also admitted that the said complaint was duly registered and their technician visited the house of the complainant and on examination he was informed to take the unit to this service centre. They again admitted that thereafter lock down was declared and hence it was not able to take back the unit for service. But ultimately in the month of November 2020, the unit was taken to service centre and on examination it was found complaint on drum and that was required to be replaced. They again admitted that the warranty period was already over and the complainant was informed to pay the repairing charges. But complainant was not amenable for repair on chargeable basis. From the above facts we are on the opinion that complainant duly registered the complaint before the expiry of warranty period. After perusing the affidavits and documents it was found that there was no mistake on the part of complainant. He duly registered the complaint and informed the defect to the opposite party No.1. That is also admitted by opposite party No.1. They again admitted that due to corona they were not able to take the washing machine from complainant’s house. After going through the details we are on the opinion that there was no mistake from the side of complainant in this matter. After examination the mechanic of opposite party No.1 informed the complainant about the necessity of taking the washing machine to the service centre for repair. But opposite party No.1 and 3 approached the complainant only after the expiry of the warranty period. The act of opposite party No.1 and 3 is a clear deficiency of service. The lock-down and the subsequent closure of shops was not due to the defect of complainant. Complainant duly informed the complaint to the opposite party No.1 and they also admitted the same. Hence it is the duty of opposite party No.1 to repair the washing machine free of cost.
15. Another contention of opposite party No.1 is that complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. But alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submission of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. Hence in the absence of such technical report on record complaint deserves dismissal. But we are on the opinion that opposite party No.3 gone to complainant’s house for inspecting the washing machine and thereafter he informed that the defect caused to the washing machine could not be rectified from complainant’s house. Hence he informed the complainant that one person from the service centre will take the washing machine from complainant’s house. From the version and affidavit of opposite party No.1, it is clear that the washing machine had defects. Opposite party No.1 also admitted that defect of the washing machine. That is why the mechanic of opposite party No.1 wanted to take the washing machine from the house of complainant to his service centre. From the above facts it is clear that opposite party No.1 also admitted the defects of the washing machine which will not be rectified from complainant’s house. So there is no need of expert opinion for the above contention. It is admitted by opposite party No.1.
16. From the above facts we are on the opinion that there is no mistake committed by the complainant. The unit was got dyfunct within the warranty period of three years and that is also admitted by opposite party No.1. Moreover opposite party No.2 is having no role in the above matter. They only sold the washing machine to complainant who was Police officer. Due to the deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.1 and 3, complainant suffered mental agony physical hardship and sufferings. Opposite party No.1 and 3 did not act in the proper time. Opposite party did not provide warranty benefits to the complainant during the warranty period. Hence there is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party No.1 and 3 as alleged by the complainant. Complainant not committed any mistakes, he informed opposite party No.1 about the defect of washing machine in time. Hence, he is entitled to get the washing machine replaced or he is entitled to get the money refunded and he is also entitled to get compensation and cost of the proceedings. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite party No.1 and 3 are deficient in service.
17. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party No.1 & 3 are directed to refund Rs. 25,047.94/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand and forty seven and ninety four paisa only) the cost of the washing machine to the complainant and complainant is directed to return the washing machine to opposite party No.3 after receiving full amount from opposite party No.1 & 3. Opposite party No. 3 is at liberty to take back the washing machine from complainant’s house within a reasonable time
- The opposite party No.1 & 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite party No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party No.1 & 3 are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 & A2
Ext.A1 : Duplicate bill given by opposite party No.2 to complainant while purchasing
the washing machine and some other products.
Ext.A2 : Original warranty card given by opposite party No.1 to complainant.
Ext.A3 : CD which contains the conversation between complainant and opposite
party No.3.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1& B2
Ext.B1 : Power of Attorney.
Ext.B3 : warranty card.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
