Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

112/2010

S.R.Murugan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, IFB Industries Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

P.Malliga

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 05.03.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 20.02.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

        DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II          

CC. NO.112 /2010

TUESDAY THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

                                              

S.R.Murugan,

S/o. Ramanan,

No.G7, M.P. Apartments,

No.50/191, Dharga Road,

Rajaji Nagar, Pallavaram,

Chennai – 43.                                                     .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

The Manager,

IFB Industries Ltd.,

Old No.37, New No.6,

Arcot Road,

Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.               ..  Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s.M.Selvam & others     

Counsel for opposite party     :  M/s. D.Abdullah   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to repay a sum of Rs.17000/- towards purchase of machine and also to repay a sum of Rs.1600/- towards extension of warranty and also to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he purchased a Washing Machine IFB model AW 60-806, SR.No.70200304 on 12.7.2007 from the opposite party for Rs.17,000/.  The opposite party sold the said washing machine with two year warranty.   The complainant further state that the washing machine developed several problems within the period of warranty.   Hence after expiry of two years  the complainant was given the option of extension of warranty for one year on payment of additional cost of Rs.1600/-. The warranty was extended till 18.7.2010.  Further  the complainant state that on 21.12.2009 when the complainant operated the washing machine it was not functioned.  Immediately the complainant called the opposite party.   The opposite party also registered the complaint No.39000030 and assured to attend the fault.   Even after several reminders the opposite party failed to attend the fault and set right the machine caused great inconvenience since the complainant and his wife are employee.  The complainant issued legal notice dated 2.2.2010 there was no reply.    As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.   

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  Admittedly the complainant purchased the washing machine with warranty for two years which expired on 19.7.2009.  The allegation that the warranty was extended on payment of Rs.1600/- for the period from 19.7.2009 to 18.7.2009 is absolutely false. The opposite party state that the contract was only to provide annual maintenance to the washing machine after the expiry of warranty period.    In as much as the complaint No.3900030 made on  21.12.2009 the technicians were deputed to attend the complaint without any delay the complaint in the machine could not be attended since there was no one available in the house to attend to the complaint.   Subsequently the complainant had also shifted the machine from Pallavaram to Valasaravakkam which was not known to the opposite party.     On the customer intimating the opposite party the present address of the complainant the machine was repaired as per annual maintenance contract free of cost on 5.8.2010.  It is further submitted that the complainant availed the services without reserving his right to contest the complaint.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.17,000/   towards the purchase price of the washing machine as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1600/- paid towards extension of warranty with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with cost as prayed for ?

5.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   Admittedly the complainant purchased a washing machine IFB model AW 60-806, SR.No.70200304 on 12.7.2007 from the opposite party for Rs.17,000/. The opposite party sold the said washing machine with two year warranty as per Ex.A1.   The complainant further contended that the washing machine developed several problems within the period of warranty.   Hence after theexpiry of two years  the complainant was given the option of extension of warranty for one year on payment of additional cost of Rs.1600/-.   As per Ex.A2 the warranty was extended till 18.7.2010.  Further  the contention of the complainant is that on 21.12.2009 when the complainant operated the washing machine it was not functioned.  Immediately the complainant called the opposite party.   The opposite party also registered the complaint No.39000030 and assured to attend the fault.   Even after several reminders the opposite party failed to attend the fault and set right the machine caused great inconvenience since the complainant and his wife are employee.  The complainant issued legal notice Ex.A3 dated 2.2.2010 for which there is no reply.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party admitted the receipt of a sum of Rs.1600/- towards instead of the extension of warranty  only towards annual maintenance on 15.7.2009 as per Ex.A2.   is absolutely false.   Further the contention of the complainant is that  shifting from residence from Pallavaram to Valasarawakkam  shall not cause any inconvenience to the opposite party for attending the fault.   Since as per Ex.B1 job card the opposite party is well aware of the change of address of the complainant.

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly the complainant purchased the washing machine with warranty for two years which expired on 19.7.2009.  The allegation that the warranty was extended on payment of Rs.1600/- for the period from 19.7.2009 to 18.7.2009 is absolutely false.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2 it is seen that “ Warranty to AMC”   proves that the warranty to Annual Maintenance charges was renewed.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the contract is only an annual maintenance contract he was paid only render service.  On receipt of complaint the technician was deputed by the opposite party but the house of the complainant was locked.  The complainant did not inform about the shifting.   Further the opposite party contended that the complainant suppressed material fact of shifting of residence as per clause 12 a contract signed by him not complied.   The complainant availed the service of the opposite party on 5.8.2010 without reserving his right to contest the complaint; after filing this complaint on 5.3.2010 which is not denied by the complainant.    The complainant also admitted the said fact in his written arguments that “ the opposite party had admitted that the machine was repaired on 5.8.2010 which is after expiry of warranty period; the period for which the machine sat idle also be considered for compensation proves the deficiency in service.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case  the opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-  for mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 20^th day of February 2018. 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 12.7.2007 - Copy of warranty card.

Ex.A2- 15.6.2009 - Copy of warranty extension receipt.

Ex.A3- 2.2.2010  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4- 8.2.2010  - Copy of ack. Card.

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1-            - Copy of job card / installation sheet.

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.