CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present

Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member

CC.No.144/09

Saturday, the day of 30^th, January, 2010.

Petitioner. Satheesmon Thomas

Vallathu Thomas villa

Keezhcerimel, Chnganoor

Alappuzha.

(Adv.S.Ganeshkumar)

Vs.

Opposite parties. 1. The Manager

Electrolux, 36/651A,

Leela Estate, Provident Fund Road

Chennai Line, Kaloor, Cochin-17.

O R D E R

Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas, Member.

The petitioner's case is as follows.

The petitioner purchased an Electrolux Washing Machine of model AURUM 16-PREM-WHITE from the third opposite party for Rs.15,500/- on 22.5.2007. The machine manufactured by the first opposite party had a warranty for 2 years from the date of purchase. According to the petitioner, the machine started malfunctioning on the first day of its use. The petitioner alleged that the machine stopped while working. Evenafter repeated complaints requests and reminders the machine was not repaired properly. The machine started showing other complaints also besides the above mentioned complaint. The petitioner further alleged that the machine is having lot of manufacturing defects and the act of opposite party in not repairing the machine properly is a clear case of deficiency in service. Hence the petitioner filed this petition praying to

-2-

direct the opposite parties to replace the machine or refund the the purchase money, to pay Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony caused and costs.

Notice was served to first, second and third opposite parties. The first, second and third opposite parties called absent and they were set exparte.

Points for consideration are:

(I) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade

practice on the part of opposite party?

2. Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and exhibits A1 to A6(b).

Point No.1

Heard the petitioner and perused the documents. The original bill for the purchase of the electrolux washing machine is produced and marked as exhibit A1. As per exhibit A1. The said machine was purchased on 22-05-07 for Rs.15,500/-. The original warranty card is produced and marked as exhibit A2. Office copy of the advocate's notice dt. 5.3.09 sent by the petitioner to the opposite parties is marked as exhibit A3. As per exhibit A3 it is seen that the alleged malfunctioning of the machine was informed to the opposite parties within warranty period itself. The petitioner produced documents proving that the electrolux was acquired by the Videocon Industries. The documents are marked as exhibit A6, A6 (a) A6(b). As the opposite parties chose not to contest, we are constrained to rely upon the averments of the petitioner and the documents placed on record by the petitioner. In our view the act of opposite parties in not redressing the petitioner's grievances is a clear case of deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

-3-

Point No.2.

In view of the findings in point No.1 the petition is allowed.

The petition is ordered as follows.

The first, second and third opposite parties will jointly and severally refund Rs.15,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation along with a litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the petitioner. As interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. Before refunding the purchase money the opposite parties can take back the defective washing machine. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of its copy.

Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sd/-

Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/-

APPENDIX

Documents of the petitioner.

Ext.A1 Original purchase bill

Ext.A2 Original warranty card

Ext.A3 Office copy of advocate's notice

Ext.A4 The cover returned addressed to I opposite party.

Ext.A5 Postla A/D card.

Ext.A5(a) Postal A/D card

-4-

ExtA6 Document downloaded from interest.

Ext.A6(a) Document downloaded from interest

Ext.A6(b) Document downloaded from internet.

Documents of the opposite party.

NIL.

By Orders,

Senior Superintendent.

Kgr/4 copies.