Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
This complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been lodged by the Complainant against the O.Ps. in brief, the case of the Complainant is that the Husband of the Complainant purchased an automatic Washing Machine worth Rs. 25,200/- from JAINCO TRADERS on 01.07.2015 with a warranty of 10 years from the date of purchase. The said washing machine was operative but on 14.03.2017 it developed a technical snag due to which it became unfit for any work. The matter was informed to Service Centre (OP-1) of the machine and their two service engineers checked the machine to find out the fault but they could not succeed. Then O.P.-1 advised the Complainant to visit JAINCO TRADERS (O.P.-3) for choosing a new washing machine in lieu of old one. Accordingly the Complainant visited the shop of O.P.-3 with all documents and made choice of the new washing machine, and then returned back to O.P.-1 when O.P.-1 wanted two days time for replacing the old machine. But after a long period O.P.-1 did not contact the Complainant for replacement of the same.
Thereafter the matter was placed before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and FBP, Coochbehar for mediation for which both parties were requested to attend the Office of the Assistant Director, CA&FBP on 06.11.2017. But the Complainant could not appear before the said office due to death of her husband which was intimated to the office by her brother-in-law. On that day service engineer of O.P.-1 Company assured the Complainant and her brother-in-law to replace the machine with another of same make and model within a week which was admitted by them.
On 11.12.2017 the Complainant’s brother-in-law went to the Office of the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Coochbehar and told him that as per conversation with service engineer of O.P.-1 Company he had gone to Poddar Traders, Coochbehar and chose a washing machine of same model but O.P.-1 Company was not replacing the old one and was asking for more time. But this mediation was also failed.
Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this case before this Commission for Redressal of her grievances. She prayed for a direction to the O.P.s to replace the defective washing machine with a new one or to refund the price of the said washing machine i.e. Rs. 25,200/-. She also prayed for paying her a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment, Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings.
The OP-1 & OP-3 did not contest the case. So the case was heard ex-parte against the OP-1 & OP-3. OP-2 contested the case and argued that as there was no manufacturing defect so they were not liable in any ways.
Points for discussion
- Is the Complainant a Consumer under CP Act, 1986?
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get relief prayed for?
All the points are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion. The husband of the Complainant purchased an automatic washing machine from O.P.-3 Company. The said machine become defective after few months’ operation. The matter was informed to service centre of machine and their service engineer tried their best to rectify the problems but could not succeed. Then O.P.-1 Company told the Complainant for replacement of the said machine from the Dealer of the manufacturing Company at Coochbehar but later O.P.-1 Company did not respond to that effect in a positive way. Afterward the washing machine row was placed before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Coochbehar for mediation where the same incident of assuring the Complainant for replacement of the defective machine with new one from the dealer of the machine at Coochbehar and later taking more time for the same by the O.P.-1 Company happened. Ultimately this instant case was filed by the Complainant before this Commission for getting reliefs.
Notices were served upon the O.P.s but O.P.-1 & O.P.-3 did not turn up before this Commission to contest the case. So the case was heard ex-parte against the O.P-1 & O.P.-3. O.P.-2 contested the case by filing W.V. evidence on affidavit and written argument. The Complainant adduced both evidence on affidavit and filed documents to substantiate her case.
Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant argued that O.P.-1 & O.P.-3 assured his client to replace the defective machine with new one twice but did not fulfil their assurance.
Ld. Lawyer for the O.P.-II also mentioned about the replacement of defective machine in her written argument. She also stated that O.P-2 Company agreed to replace the same for sake of good will of the company. But she denied to be liable for the case as there was no manufacturing defect detected so far.
It is pertinent to mention here that it is the onus of the O.P. to file petition for ascertaining the defects by any laboratory or expert. It is the discretion of the Commission to refer to Laboratory or expert for ascertaining defects of the machine.
The Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant filed copies of Tax invoice from JAINCO TRADERS, whirlpool Washing Machine Warranty Registration Card, notice of the Asst. Director, CA & FBP, Coochbehar, Note sheet of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business practices, Coochbehar and death certificate of Mr. Bhaskar Ranjan Paul, husband of the complainant who purchased the washing machine in dispute.
After the demise of her husband complainant filed this instant case. There was no objection raised by the OP-2 regarding above mentioned documents.
After pursuing the case record and documents filed by the both parties it is evident that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s.
The Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant filed a case law wherein it was decided that “not paying heed to the words of the Complainant tantamount to deficiency in service. In this case O.P.-1 & O.P.-2 did not keep their words of replacing the defective machine with a new one. So this is a gross deficiency in service which in turn caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the Complainant.
Therefore the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Hence, for ends of justice it is,
Ordered
That the instant case be and same is allowed ex-parte against O.P-1 & O.P.-3 without cost.
Opposite parties are held jointly and severally liable to refund the price of the defective washing machine to the tune of Rs.25,200/-, and to pay Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceeding. O.P.-1, O.P.-2 and O.P.-3 are directed to refund and pay the awarded sum of Rs.60,200/- to the Complainant/Petitioner jointly & severally within 1 month from the date of passing the order. The O.P.s are further directed to pay the awarded money within one month from passing the order failing which it shall carry an interest of 6% P.A. from the date of passing order till the date of its realization.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
