Complaint presented on  :  29.10.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  11.03.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

FRIDAY  THE  11^th   DAY OF MARCH 2016

C.C.NO.239/2012

S.P.Annadurai,

#:P.54/8 MGR 3^rd Street,

MMDA Colony,

Arumbakkam Chennai – 106.

                                                                             ..... Complainant

..Vs..

Date of complaint                                  : 01.11.2012

Counsel for Complainant                      : S.Natarajan

Counsel for 1st opposite party                 : Ex parte

Counsel for 2^nd opposite Party                      : D.Abdullah

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

       The Complainant purchased a IFB Washing machine on 28.10.2008 from the 1^st Opposite Party which was  manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party  for a consideration of Rs.13,300/-. The warranty is for a period of 2 years. On 06.05.2009 the Complainant informed to the 1^st Opposite Party that the washing machine is not working. The 2^nd Opposite Party personnel ineffectively attended the problem.  Nearly four or five times Complaints given by the Complainant and inspite of that the board and some other spare parts were changed the situation has not been improved and the problem of water storage in the machine continued.  On 17.03.2010 the washing machine stopped after rinsing and the service personnel after attending the problem gave some powder to be used monthly. Even after that the machine was stopped while it was in use, then he complained that there was no response for his Complaint. After 40 days of the continuous persuasion the 2^nd Opposite Party personnel came and inspected the product and extended the warranty for a further period of 2 years.  As per instructions, the Complainant also installed stabilizer even after that there has no change.  The product is having inherent manufacturing defect and the 1^st Opposite Party personnel failed to effectively repair the problem is amount to Deficiency in Service and due to that the Complainant suffered with mental agony. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint for refund of the cost of the product with interest and also for compensation with litigation expenses.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd Opposite Party maintains a computerized system of keeping track of the consumer complaints known as CRM, whenever a customer calls the customer care centre number, the date of call, time of call is recorded with nature of Complaint and a Complaint ID is created. The call is forwarded to the franchisee of the respective area. The franchisee on assigning the work to the technicians enters the name of technician, date of assignment and the date of completion of job and remarks are noted. This CRM data is relied by the 2^nd Opposite Party for all its commercial purposes and the system is maintained in the usual course of the business of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The data shows that the Complainant had not called on the days mentioned and no such Complaint was recorded. The problem was properly attended to and the Complainant has been using the washing machine regularly with no other major Complaint. If the washing machine had manufacturing defects the Complainant would not have used the machine regularly. The problems complained off were only operational in nature and are not inherent manufacturing defect. The service by cleaning etc has put the machine back to normalcy. Therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT:1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased an IFB washing machine for a consideration of Rs. 13,300/- from the 1^st Opposite Party under Ex.A1, which was manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party and Ex.A2, is the warranty card and Ex.A3 is the extended warranty card.

          5. According to the Complainant the washing machine/product  was not  working on 06.05.2009 and he made a Complaint to the 1^st Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party attended the problem ineffectively and even after change of board and some other parts four or five times he made Complaints and however the water storage in the product continued  and again he gave Complaint on 17.03.2010 and 01.05.2012  and even after that the Opposite Party personnel have not done the repair effectively and the working condition of the product not in condition and therefore the product is having inherent manufacturing defect. 

          6. The Opposite Party would reply that as stated in the Complaint the Complainant never called this 1^st Opposite Party several times, to repair the product and prove the same no documents filed and further the product is not having any inherent manufacturing defect and further to prove the manufacturing defect no evidence is available and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          7. The Complainant filed Ex.A4 is the job card issued by the 2^nd opposite Party. In Ex.A4 job card the Complainant name was not found and further Micro Wave Oven product name only mentioned. Therefore absolutely Ex.A4 is not the job card of the Complainant and the same has no relevance in this case.  Further in the Complaint, the Complainant averred four or five times that he made Complaints to the 1^st Opposite Party and further on 17.03.2010 and 01.05.2012 also made Complaint and though the 2^nd Opposite Party personnel attended the problem they have not rectified the same. If the service attended by the 2^nd Opposite Party personnel certainly they could have issued job card to the Complainant. None of the job card filed by the Complainant only proves that the Complainant has not made any Complaint to rectify the problem. Further in the Complaint it is mentioned that board and some other parts changed. If really parts were changed certainly the service personnel could have issued bill for the same and such bills also not filed by the Complainant. Further absolutely there is no evidence produced to accept that the product is having inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore, it is concluded that the Complainant has not proved either the service deficiency of the 2^nd Opposite Party or the product is having inherent manufacturing defect or hence it is held that the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

8. POINT:2  

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th day of March 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28.10.2008                   Invoice/ Cash Bill

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Warranty card              

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Extended Warranty

Ex.A4 dated 05.05.2009                   Job card     

Ex.A5 dated 03.08.2013                   Gabriel Enterprises

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                      …… NIL ……

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT