DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 31 day of August 2022
C.C.88 / 2019
Complainant
K.K. Vijayan
Room No. 406, 4th Floor,
Plama Fortunes,
NR Babay Memorial Hospital,
Thiruthiyad Road, Puthiyara
9447540140.
(By Adv. Smt. Punya. T.)
Opposite Parties
- The manager,
Lloyd Electronics & Engineering Ltd.,
159, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase III, New Delhi-110020
- The manager,
Kannankandy sales corporation,
Mavoor Road, Calicut-673004.
( OP 1 & 2 By Adv. Sri. Sujatha K.N.)
ORDER
By Smt. PRIYA. S - MEMBER
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant purchased a washing machine from the second opposite party on 15/08/2017. Complainant’s contention is that the product is having 2 years warranty from the date of purchase. On 30/01/2019 the washing machine got damaged. Then the complainant made a complaint to the 1st opposite party. On 01/02/2019 a technician came and found out the complaint. He told that a particular thing inside the washing machine has to be changed and also told that the same thing has to be ordered from the head office and it would take 3 days to get the courier to him. Then the complainant contacted the service centre, they told that they have already ordered the spare part. But they did not contact.
3. On 07/03/2019 the complainant again contacted the customer centre and complained to the Area Manager. He assured that he would solve the issue on 11/03/2019. After that he never responded to the complainant’s call. The complainant residing in an appartment in Calicut . It is very difficult for the complainant to live without washing machine in a flat. So the complainant prays to award him compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- for his mental and financial hardships.
4. The 1st and the 2nd opposite parties filed their version separately. The 3rd opposite party was set ex-parte.
5. According to the 1st opposite party, the business of consumer durables of the 1st opposite party has been taken over by Hawells India Ltd. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has not directly interacted in connection with purchase / sale of the product in this case, as a matter of fact. The complainant purchased Lloyd washing machine from the 2nd opposite party. Further the complainant has made the Manager of Lloyd Electronics & Engineering Ltd as an opposite party, whereas the said Manager as such is not a legal entity and merely an employee of Lloyd Electronics & Engineering Ltd and was not to be made a party. Therefore present complaint is bad for non- joinder of parties.
6. The customer directly registered a complaint with the authorized service centre. The product purchased by the complainant got malfunctioned since the pulsator of the washing machine initially showed inconsistency as diagnosed by the authorized service centre. Accordingly the pulsator was replaced and unfortunately it happened to be so that while replacing the pulsator under warranty, the inner tub of the washing machine got loose which caused shake to the machine body while it was switched on which in turn damaged its outer tub. Though due care was taken while fixing the inner tub by the technician of the authorized service centre unfortunately it got loose while the machine was switched on and working which in turn damaged the machine. So the 1st opposite party decided to replace the washing machine as a whole and a new washing machine was given to the complainant on 26/04/2019. The complainant in fact was fully satisfied and accordingly he executed a satisfaction letter where in the complainant had also agreed to withdraw all claims filed against the 1st opposite party including the case pending before this Forum. The copy of the letter dated 26/04/2014 issued by the complainant is produced along with the version. So it is stated that there is absolutely no cause of action for the present complaint and the said complaint has been filed only to extort money from the 1st opposite party. The first opposite party prays that the reliefs sought for by the complainant are excessive and unacceptable and are liable to be rejected. The present case is therefore to be dismissed.
7. The 2nd opposite party admits that the complainant has purchased a Lloyd semi automatic washing machine from them on 15/08/2017. The events after that viz, the washing machine got damaged; the technician after inspection diagnosed that certain parts should be changed; on 07/03/2019 when the complainant called the customer care number Area Manager’s number was given; when the complainant contacted the Area Manager on 11/03/2019 he assured that he would do the needful and cut the call. These allegations have no connection with the 2nd opposite party and the burden is upon the complainant to prove.
8. The second opposite party is only a distributor of electronic goods of various companies. The complainant had purchased the washing machine at his volition and satisfaction. If at all any manufacturing defect is there with regard to the washing machine it is the responsibility of the 1st and the 3rd opposite parties and not that of the 2nd opposite party. There is no cause of action against the 2nd opposite party. This complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. So the 2nd opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.
9. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2) Reliefs and costs.
10. Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit, Exts A1, A2 and A3 series on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Ext B1 was marked on the side of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party adduced no evidence. The 3rd opposite party was already set ex-parte.
11. Heard.
12. Point No. 1: The point to be determined is that whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged. According to section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
13. In this case the complainant purchased a washing machine from the 2nd opposite party on 15/08/2017. On 30/01/2019 the washing machine got damaged. The complainant complained about this to the 1st opposite party. On 01/02/2019 a technician came and found out the complaint. He told that a particular thing inside the washing machine has to be changed and also told it will take 3 days to get. Then the complainant contacted the service centre. They said that they have already ordered for the same, In the meanwhile the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party and were never picked up the call. On 07/03/2021 the complainant again contacted the customer care centre and complained to the Area Manager. He assured that he will solve the issue on 11/03/2019. On 23/03/2019 when the complainant contacted the Area Manager he stated that there is no warranty for plastic parts. The complainant filed a complaint before the Forum on 15/03/2019. On 29/04/2019 the complainant got notice from the Forum to appear. On 24/04/2009 the Area Manager contacted the complainant and said that the company would replace the washing machine. That day itself the complainant got the new washing machine. Since the complainant is residing in a flat it is difficult to be without a washing machine and he says that he had given the clothes to doby for washing. He is demanding compensation for the mental, financial hardships which he had undergone during the above said days.
14. The complainant purchased the washing machine is an undisputed fact. Also not disputed that the machine got damaged. There is yet another fact accepted by all these parties is that the company has replaced the washing machine for which Ext B1 document is a self-speaking evidence. So the main grievance of the complainant is settled by replacing with a brand new washing machine.
15. The rest is the delay in replacing the washing machine. Admittedly the grievance of the complainant was redressed only after filing the present complaint. He had to manage without a washing machine. In the proof affidavit filed by the complainant it is averred that he had to avail the service of doby outside for washing the clothes. The complainant was not cross examined and his evidence in this regard stands unchallenged. The delay itself amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to be compensated for the inconvenience and hardship. Ext B1 should not stand in the way of granting compensation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get Rs 3,000/- as compensation from the first and second opposite parties. Point found accordingly.
16. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point the complaint is disposed of as follows:
(a) CC 88/2019 is allowed in part.
(b) The 1st and the 2nd opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
(c) No order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 31st day of August 2022.
Date of Filing: 15/03/2019.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Tax invoice.
Ext. A2 – Warranty.
Ext. A3 series- Details of message.
Exhibits for the opposite parties
Ext. B1- Receipt of repaired washing machine.
Witnesses for the Complainant
NIL
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1-Muhammed Fabid. M
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded / By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
