DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of September 2018
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 07/03/2018
: Sri.V.P.Ananatha Narayanan, Member
CC/37/2018
C.Divakaran,
S/o.Poonath Kochu Nair,
Retired Principal,
Lakshmikripa, Puzhakalthara, - Complainant
Kollengode, Pin 678 506.
Vs
1. The Manager,
Next Retail India Ltd.,
Next Palakkad Surya,
Surya City Building, - Opposite parties
G.B.Road, Palakkad,
Pin – 678 001.
2. The Service Manager/Authorised Signatory,
A-Tech Care, Dasampatti House,
Opp.Gopalakrishna Temple,
Kalvakkulam, Palakkad,
Pin – 678 001.
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of complaint
Complainant has purchased a full automatic Videocon washing machine for an amount of Rs.13,300/-(Rupees thirteen thousand three hundred only) from 1st opposite party on 26.09.2014. The product has two years warranty of Manufacturer and two years extended warranty of the dealer. Opposite parties charged additional amount for extended warranty. Complainant submitted that in the month of December 2017 washing machine did not work properly. He immediately informed the problems of washing machine to the 1st opposite party. After that 2nd opposite party’s technician came to the house of complainant to repair the washing machine and he told that main circuit board of washing machine was damaged, hence it is to be replaced. And he also informed that the manufacturer will replace the above circuit board. He charged Rs.300/- from the complainant for his visit. Till the date of filing of complaint, opposite parties did not redress his grievances. Due to the act of opposite parties he had suffered a lot of mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to replace the washing machine or to refund the cost of washing machine Rs.13,300/-, Rs.300/- the amount charged by the technician of the 2nd opposite party and Rs.2,000/- as cost of proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties. Despite of receipt of notice opposite parties did not appear before the forum. Hence name called and set exparte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Complainant filed an application to appoint an expert commissioner and application was allowed. Commissioner examined the washing machine and filed report which was marked as Ext.C1. In the commission report commissioner stated that there is no mechanical, electrical or panel board defects in the washing machine. He reported that at the time of inspection he found that main supply wire to the drain motor was disconnected. When the wire connected the drain motor started working. Complainant filed objection to commission report. Evidence was closed and matter was heard.
Issues arise for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 &2
We have perused the affidavits and documents filed before the Forum. Ext.A1 proves that complainant has purchased the washing machine on 26.09.2014 with two years warranty of manufacturer and two years extended warranty of dealer. Complainant submitted that on 04.12.2017 the washing machine did not function properly so he complained to the opposite parties about the non functioning of the washing machine. 2nd opposite party’s technician came to the house of complainant and told that main circuit board of washing machine was damaged, hence it is to be replaced and he charged Rs.300/- from the complainant. Complainant further submitted that the opposite parties did not repair the washing machine till the date of filing of complaint and due to the act of opposite parties he had suffered a lot of mental agony and financial loss.
In order to ascertain the defects of the washing machine an expert commissioner was appointed and he filed detailed report stating that there is no manufacturing defect in the washing machine. Commissioner further reported that at the time of inspection he found that main supply wire to the drain motor was disconnected. When the wire connected the drain motor started working. In the above circumstances we are of the view that opposite party’s technician did not given proper service to the complainant. Opposite parties should have the liability to repair the washing machine free of cost even if there is a minor defect during warranty period. Opposite parties unnecessarily dragged the complainant to the Forum. The opposite parties remained absent and there is no contra evidence to disprove the case of the complainant. In the above circumstances we are of the view that opposite parties committed deficiency in service in providing proper service to the complainant. Hence the complaint is partly allowed. We direct 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant towards the compensation for mental agony suffered and also to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of proceedings. Since there is no manufacturing defect in the washing machine, opposite parties have no liability to refund or replace the washing machine to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of September 2018.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Original Cash Memo issued by 1st Opposite Party dated 26.09.2014
Ext.A2 - Warranty details page of the Owner’s manual of Washing Machine.
Ext.A3 - Original Cash receipt issued by 2nd Opposite Party dated 6.12.2017.
Ext.C1- Technical Commissioner’s Report dated 25.6.2018.
Cost
Rs.3,000/-
