Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

23/2007

N.Jayachandran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

T.N.Omana

31 Jul 2008

ORDER


Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. 23/2007

N.Jayachandran
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Manager
Maya agencies
The Office in Charge
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 23/2007 Filed on 19.01.2007 Dated : 31.07.2008 Complainant: N. Jayachandran, residing at T.C 6/184(3), Sunil Nivas, P.K.P Road, Kodunganoor P.O, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013. (By adv. T.N.Omana) Opposite parties: 1.The Manager, Home Care Solutions, Whirl Pool of India Ltd, Thushara, T.C 29/2381, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram -14. 2.The Officer-in-Charge, The Consumer Service Department, Whirl Pool of India Ltd., A-8, Qutab Institutional Area, 2nd Floor, Vaitalic, New Delhi – 110 067. 3.Maya Agencies, T.C 28/2428, M.G. Road, Opp: SMV High School, Thiruvananthapuram – 1. This O.P having been heard on 09.07.2008, the Forum on 31.07.2008 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant N. Jayachandran purchased a whirlpool F/A Europa Classic Washing Machine from the 3rd opposite party as per bill No. 9038 for an amount of Rs. 20100/-. After a few months of its installation the machine began to develop certain working disorder and during the year 2005 the machine got totally damaged. The complainant informed the matter to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party took the washing machine to his shop for doing the repair works. The complainant waited for a few weeks for getting the machine repaired by the 1st opposite party who is the manager of the Whirlpool Service Centre. All the efforts of the complainant for taking delivery of the said washing machine from the 1st opposite party failed. On 03.08.2005 the complainant sent notices to the opposite parties. Though notices were received by the opposite parties they did not respond. Due to the acts of the opposite parties the complainant has been put to much inconvenience, hardships, sufferings, mental agony and huge financial loss. Hence he approached this Forum for redressing his grievances. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are exparte. The 3rd opposite party filed version. The 3rd opposite party admitted that they have supplied the washing machine to the complainant. After all the transactions, including services, were done by the 1st opposite party. According to the 3rd opposite party the delay caused to the delivery of repaired machine was due to he non-availability of component. And they pray to exonerate them from the liabilities. The complainant filed affidavit and has been examined as PW1 and produced 6 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. Ext. P1 is the bill showing the purchase of accessories for Rs. 1200/-. Ext. P2 is the bill of Rs. 18900/-, price of the washing machine. Ext. P3 is the collection note issued by the 1st opposite party at the time of taking the machine for repair. Ext. P4 is the copy of advocate notice. Exts. P5 and P6 are the postal receipts and acknowledgement cards of the notice. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are exparte in this case. The 3rd opposite party filed version, but the 3rd opposite party did not cross examine the complainant and hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. The complainant in this case succeeded to prove his complaint with sufficient proofs. The opposite party also admits that the machine has been purchased and it got damaged. There is no material to show that the opposite parties have returned the washing machine to the complainant. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are bound to repair it. But they did not do their part properly. Hence this Forum finds that there is severe deficiency in service. As per Sec. 13(1)c of Consumer Protection Act, expert opinion is necessary to decide the case, but in this case since the faulty washing machine is with the custody of the opposite party, the said procedure is not capable of being followed. As per the ruling cited in 1999(4) SCC 315 it is the settled position that no fault can be found with the District Fora, State Fora, or the National Commission in the matter of not following the procedure under Sec. 13(1)(c) when the complainant was not in possession of the same. From the foregoing discussions the complaint is allowed and directed the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to refund the price of washing machine with a depreciation amount of Rs. 5000/- for its use for 5 years. Hence the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 13900/- along with a compensation of Rs. 2000/- and cost of the complaint Rs. 1000/-. Time for compliance is two months, if failed to pay within that period, 9% interest per annum shall be paid. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 31st July, 2008. G. SIVAPRASAD, President. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 23/2007 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - N. Jayachandran II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Original job sheet issued by Whirlpool of India Ltd. Customer Service Dept for Rs. 1200/-. P2 - Original invoice/Bill No. 8038 dated 27.08.2001 for Rs. 18900/-. P3 - Original collection/delivery note with work order No. 1206. P4 - Copy of letter issued to the opposite parties by the complainant. P5(2 Nos.) - Original postal receipt with No. 2699, 2700 and 2701. P6 (3 Nos.) - Original postal acknowledgment card issued to the complainant. III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS : NIL PRESIDENT




......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad