By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant is aggrieved that the 'whirlpool' washing machine purchased from first opposite party for Rs.15,500/- on 21-8-2008 became defective and stopped working after 17 days of it's purchase. Though first opposite party was informed about the defect, no one turned up to rectify the defect. Complainant took the washing machine in a goods autorickshaw to the shop of first opposite party for repair. First opposite party neither rectified the defect nor intimated complainant anything after that. Complainant then issued a registered notice to first opposite party through a lawyer on 10-10-2008. To this a reply notice was issued putting forward a strange case. When complainant had taken the washing machine to opposite party for repair opposite party had not even cared to examine the machine or hear the grievance of the complainant. The machine is still with first opposite party. Hence this complaint.

2. Registered notice was issued to both opposite parties from this Forum. These notices were duly served to them. The acknowledgement card of the notice to first opposite party was returned to this Forum. It bears the seal and signature of first opposite party. The Notice is received by first opposite party on 04-12-2008. First opposite party remained absent and has not filed any version. First opposite party was set exparte on 30-12-2008. Second opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The purchase of washing machine is admitted. Opposite party denies the washing machine to have any manufacturing defect. It is stated that the problem with the machine was that the dump valve through which water has to flow out, was blocked by a safety pin and therefore the water was flowing through other parts of the machine. That second opposite party was not aware of reporting any defect and that the dealer has not reported any such complaint. After receiving complaint on 18-9-2008 itself the defect was attended at service centre at Tirur. It was found that the block was due to the presence of safety pin in the dump valve. It was removed and the machine is working smoothly. That there is no deficiency in service.

3. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A4 marked for him. Second opposite party filed counter affidavit. No documents for second oppsoite party. Either side has not sought any opportunity to adduce oral evidence or to cross examine.

4. Complainant alleges the washing machine to be defective, after 17 days of it's purchase. It is his case that though he reported the defect to first opposite party there was no response. Therefore he had to take the machine to the shop of first opposite party for repairs. It is also his case that thereafter he did not receive any favourable reply from first opposite party regarding the washing machine. Opposite party admits that the machine had some problem. It is the case of opposite party that the dump valve was clogged by the presence of safety pin. It is the further case of opposite party that after removal of the foreign body the machine is working well. On perusal of averments and documents we find that opposite party does not have a case that after rectification of defects as contended by them, they had intimated the complainant that the machine is ready for delivery after repairs. Even in Ext.A4 reply notice first opposite party has not stated that the complainant can come and take delivery of the defect free washing machine. First opposite party who has caused the issuance of reply notice has conveniently opted to be absent from the proceedings. The washing machine is still with first opposite party. On such circumstances the vague affirmation of second opposite party that the defects are fully rectified cannot be accepted. The case put forward by the complainant is more true and probable. We hold that the washing machine is defective. A brand new product which has become defective after two weeks of purchase has to be replaced if the defect has not been fully rectified to the satisfaction of the consumer. The act of opposite parties in not replacing the defective product amounts to unfair trade practice. First and second opposite parties being the dealer and manufacturer are both guilty of unfair trade practice. We consider that replacement of the washing machine with cost of Rs.1,000/- would be adequate reliefs sought by him are disallowed.

5. In the result we party allow the complaint and order that first and second opposite parties shall jointly and severally be liable to replace the defect alleged washing machine with a new washing machine and also to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 14th day of September, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A4

Ext.A1 : Computer print of receipt for Rs.15,000/- dated, 21-8-2008 from

first opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Users Manual

Ext.A3 : Lawyer notice dated, 10-10-2008 issued by complainant's counsel

to first opposite party

Ext.A4 : Reply notice dated, 18-10-2008 issued by first opposite party to

complainant's counsel.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER