Date of Filing:12/02/2015
Date of Order:11/07/2016
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 11th DAY OF JULY 2016
PRESENT
SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PRESIDENT
SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER
SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.) LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.293/2015
Sri S.Chandrappa,
No.4, Sree Rama Nilaya,
7th Cross, J.S. Nagar,
Nandini Layout,
Bangalore-96. …. Complainant
V/s
The Manager,
IFB Industries Limited,
(Home Appliances Division)
No.17, Vishweshwaraiah Indl. Estate Off.
Whitefield Road,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-48. …. Opposite Party
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint in person filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred in short as O.P) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and prays for direction to the O.P to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- towards cost and further O.P to issue the original invoice cum receipt.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant purchased IFB washing machine with I.D No.1847761 and entered with contract with O.P. for annual maintenance of the washing machine. The complainant has paid Rs.3,042 to the O.P. company towards AMC vide cheque bearing No.377342. The complainant submitted that, the washing machine had water leakage problem and he complained to the O.P. company to attend the problem with complaint NO.14199598. The O.P. has not responded to the said complaint. Further the complainant has filed second complaint registered as No.14610174 and the O.P. did not respond to the same. Inspite of that, the complainant got issued the notice dated 21.1.2015 but the O.P. did not respond to the same. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, O.P appeared through their counsel and filed its version. In the version of O.P contended that complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts and hence liable to be dismissed. O.P. further contended that, the complainant has suppressed material facts before this Forum and has not approached this court with clean hands and he is not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint. Further O.P. admitted that, the complainant was purchased IFB washing machine but the washing machine was purchased long back and used the same. O.P admitted that, complainant has taken an annual maintenance contract (AMC) from the O.P and it was subject to replacement of parts within the discretion of the IFB Industries as per the terms and conditions of the AMC. It is contended that the technician of the O.P. inspected the washing machines after a complaint was lodged with the O.P. and found that there was leakage in the washing machine. The drum and parts associated with it had to be replaced and told the complainant that he would have to bear the cost of the same since it is not covered under the AMC. O.P. contended that the complainant did not bear the cost of the product. O.P. is still ready and willing to repair the washing machine if the complainant was ready to bear the cost. On other grounds the O.P. prays for dismissal of the complaint.
[[
4. To substantiate the above case, both the parties have filed the affidavit evidence along with documents. We have heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to the
relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) and (B) : In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No (A) and B:-
7. At the out set it is not in dispute that, the complainant has purchased the washing machine long back and also availed the AMC by paying the amount. In order to prove the case of the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and retreated all the facts narrated in the complaint. On perusal of the evidence on record that, the complainant did not produce the warranty card and only raised the question. Inspite of his request O.P. did not attend to the problem. Whereas O.P. contended that, the service technician inspected washing machine and found that, there is water leakage problem. Hence they are ready to replace the parts at the cost of the complainant but the complainant did not ready to bear their cost. Hence they have not repaired the washing machine. In the absence of the warranty the complainant cannot demand the replacement of parts and to repair the washing machine at free of cost.
8. It is pertinent to note that the complainant did not state that in his evidence when he had purchased the IFB washing machine in question and also not produced the warranty card. Under these circumstances, O.P rightly contended that the complainant has to bear the cost for repairing the washing machine. Though complainant paid annual maintenance charges, it is towards service only and not replace the parts. In these backdrops of facts we reached to conclusion that the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service and thereby he is not entitled for any reliefs. Accordingly, we answered these points in the negative.
POINT (C):
9. On the basis of the findings given above on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
01. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 11th Day of July 2016)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
