The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows.

 

            The complainant purchased one Godrej Washing Machine(Model No.GWS.620 FS, Unit Serial no.80105843) from the second opposite party for an amount Rs.6800/- on 03-06-2008. From the second day of the purchase itself the said washing machine was not in proper condition for use. In the first instance the drainage system of the said washing machine was improperly working. The complainant has reported the said complaint to the dealer and thereafter a service technician from the first opposite party company had done something on the machine and informed that if at all again the mistake is repeated, to inform them. The said complaint was again repeatedly happening and even went to the stage of draining of water while the machine was working. The defects happened many times and the technicians repeatedly came but their efforts were in vain. On one occasion after the repair, the draining system was completely stopped. That was informed to the opposite parties and after the alleged rectification also the same complaints repeated. Thereafter the defects went to the extent of working of the pulsater only in clockwise direction. Eventhough the said complaint was reported to the opposite parties, they had not cared to rectify the defects and at that juncture the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties claiming replacement. After the said notice the first opposite party came and done some repairing on the machine after dismantling it and he asked the complainant to give him a written statement that the defects were rectified and he is fully satisfied. The complainant had given a statement that the defects seem to be rectified and it can be perfectly ascertained only after usage. Within three days of the aforesaid repair the portion where the inner spin tub lid has to be closed was broken and the spin timer also was displaced. The complainant alleged that these defects were caused solely due to the manufacturing defect and improper service and re-setting of the parts by the first opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement of the washing machine, Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.

 

            Notice was served to both the opposite parties but the second opposite party was called absent and was set expartee. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.

i)                    Complaint regarding drain valve block was attended and the cause of the blocking was a safety pin, due to the carelessness of the complainant. The complaint of continuous draining of water was not due to any defect of the machine but due to improper setting of the drain knob.

ii)                   The complaint of pulsater happened because the complainant has twisted the timer knob in the reverse direction and the said defect was rectified by replacing the wash timer free of cost.

iii)                 The inner spin tub lid was broken due to improper operating of the washing machine by the complainant. Even though there is no warranty for plastic parts, the tub was replaced free of cost.

iv)                 There is no manufacturing defect and the minor complaints of the washing machine can be expected of any machine of continuous use. There is improper use of the washing machine. The opposite party is always prepared to cure any defects if any reported during the warranty period free of cost.

Hence the 1^st opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.

Points for consideration are:

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

ii)                   Reliefs and costs

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by the complainant and first opposite party and exhibits A1 to A4 and expert commissioner’s report ext.C1.

            Heard the counsels for both the complainant and the first opposite party. It is not in dispute that the alleged defects of the washing machine occurred within warranty. The opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant that from the second day of purchase itself the washing machine was not in a proper condition for use. According to the first opposite party the said washing machine started showing malfunctioning after the expiry of two months from the date of purchase. The learned counsel for the first opposite party argued that all the alleged defects occurred due to the mishandling of the machine by the complainant. But nothing is placed on record by the first opposite party to prove their contention regarding ‘mishandling’. In our opinion, no matter whether the malfunctioning of the brand new washing machine occurs after two days or two months from the date of its purchase, a consumer will not be satisfied.

 

            The complainant filed a commission application to appoint an expert for conducting test of the washing machine and to have his report about manufacturing defect in the washing machine if any. Forum appointed Mr. Rajesh.V.R., L.G.Service Centre, Thiruvathukkal(H), Kottayam as the expert commissioner. The test report dated 07-06-2010 was taken on record as ext.C1. It reveals that the washing machine was tested in the presence of the complainant, witness Vishakh.R.Nair on one hand and

 Mr. Ruby.S. on behalf of the opposite party on 30-05-2010. It was tested. It was reported by the expert as under:

i)                    The top cover above the spin tub is in a broken condition.

ii)                   The joint below the drainage knob of the washing machine is seen broken. At the time of testing no flow of water was possible through the drainage.

iii)                 The spin tub was not at all working.

The following conclusions were drawn from the performance testing of the washing machine.

i)                    The aforementioned defects and complaints had occurred due to the manufacturing defects and also due to the low quality materials used for the construction of the washing machine.

ii)                   From the nature of defects shown by the machine it is evident that even if the alleged defects are rectified those rectifications will not be long lasting.

 Where as the learned counsel for the first opposite party objected the commission

report and contented that there is no manufacturing defect and that the alleged defects are only minor complaints developed due to the improper use of the washing machine.

But as the expert commissioner’s report has come, as reproduced above, according to which the washing machine is suffering from manufacturing defects. From the ext. C1, report it is evident that the washing machine is having manufacturing defects which could not to be rectified to the complainant’s satisfaction. In view of the discussions held above, we hold the opposite party deficient in service point.No.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.

            In the result the complaint is ordered as follows.

            The first and second opposite parties will jointly and severally replace the defective washing machine with a brand new washing machine of the same model. At the time of replacement the opposite parties can take back the defective washing machine. Since the complainant has suffered loss of use of washing machine, the first and second opposite parties will jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs. 5000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of this order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization.

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

 

 

Documents of the complainant:

 

Ext.A1-Copy of retail invoice dtd.03-06-08

Ext.A2-Copy of warranty

Ext.A3-Office copy of advocate’s notice

Ext.A4-Copy of letter issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant dtd 17-11-2008.

 

 

Ext.C1-Expert commissioner’s report dtd 07-06-2010

 

Nil