DATE OF FILING : 16.11.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.240/2010
Between
Complainant : Savichan Mathew,
Kunnumpurathu House,
Mulappuram P.O.,
Kottakkavala, Idukki District.
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
Sancjos Appliances,
Plaza Complex, Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: N.N. Siji)
2. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.,
Near Infopark, Edachira,
Thengod P.O.,
Kakkanadu – 682 030,
Ernakulam District.
(By Advs: K.M.Sanu)
O R D E R
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
The complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine on 7.12.2009 for a consideration of Rs.14,500/- from the shop of the 1st opposite party. In 6.1.2010 the washing machine became functionless and the fact was intimated to the 1st opposite party. But he did not respond properly and the washing machine continued to be functionless. Again he intimated the fact to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party sent a mechanic without any experience and he got the washing machine repaired. But even after that the washing machine did not function properly. Registered letters were sent on warning legal action. But no action was taken by them. The complainant demanded the opposite party to replace the machine or refund the price of the machine. But they have not done. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for replacing the washing machine or refund the price of the machine along with cost and compensation.
2. In the written version filed by the 1st opposite party, it is admitted that the washing machine in question was purchased by the complainant from his shop. During when the complainant telephoned to the shop that the washing machine is not working properly, the opposite party referred the complainant to the office of the Godrej Company. The 1st opposite party is an authorised dealer of the 2nd opposite party. The manufacturing company is a necessary party to the petition and has to be impleaded. There was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
3. In the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party, it is admitted that the washing machine in question was purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party’s shop on 7.12.2009. The opposite party provided 24 months service warranty for the machine on 6.1.2010. The complainant registered a complaint that the washing machine is not working properly. The fact was intimated to the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party had supplied the machine manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and the opposite party rectified the defect on the nearest day itself on free of cost as per warranty. Again on 1.9.2010, the switch complaint arised and that was replaced on free of cost. It was found that sufficient quantity of water was not reached in the machine. The fact was intimated to the complainant and he also was convinced of the same. But the complainant did not correct the defects. The opposite party rectified the machine on free of cost without delay, when the complainant raised the complaint. The machine is working properly. The opposite party explained all these things. It is alleged that the allegations in the complaint are not correct. The opposite party has not done anything wilfully and there was no deficiency in service. So the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
5. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P6 marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1(series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.
6. The POINT :- The transaction in question is admitted. Now the dispute relates to the complaint of the machine. The complainant has given evidence as PW1. He purchased a washing machine on 7.12.2009 from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for Rs.14,500/-. It is clear from Ext.P1 bill. Ext.P2 is the warranty card issued by the opposite party at the time of purchase of the machine and it is having a warranty of 24 months from the date of purchase. Exts. P3 and P4 are the notice issued by the complainant. The opposite party received the notices. The technician from the opposite party repaired the machine several times, but the defect is not cured till 8.12.2010. One of the grievances highlighted by the complainant in the complaint is that the machine manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and the complainant purchased the same from the 1st opposite party. Because of certain defects, the complainant could not use the same effectively ever since its purchase. It is also alleged that in spite of several attempts by the 1st opposite party to repair the same, the defect could not be rectified. As per PW1, the complainant has admitted that he informed about the complaint only to the 1st opposite party and also admitted that the complaint arised is only the switch complaint. The switch was replaced on free of cost. After the repair, the machine was working properly and he is using the same. The 2nd opposite party is examined as DW1. The 2nd opposite party has no direct relation with the customer. The machine manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and are distributed through their agents, authorised dealers and also admitted that they are providing 24 months for the machine. Ext.R1 is the warranty card and user’s manual. In the cross examination, DW1 admitted that the complaint was rectified by the 2nd opposite party after getting the notice from the Forum. The technician of the 1st opposite party repaired the same in several times, but the machine became again functionless. There was no justification on the part of the opposite party for not repairing the machine properly when the complainant approached. It is a gross deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has been unnecessarily dragged to this Forum to get redressal of grievances and in the circumstances we fix the compensation for deficiency in service at Rs.2,500/- and he is also entitled to Rs.500/- by way of cost of the complaint.
In the result, the petition allowed. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,500/- by way of compensation along with Rs.500/- as cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2011
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
I agree SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Savichan Mathew.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
DW1 - Rajeev Chacko.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The bill issued by the opposite party dated 7.12.2009
Ext.P2 - The warranty card of the washing machine issued by the opposite party
Ext.P3 - Copy of the notice issued by the complainant
Ext.P4 - Copy of the notice issued by the complainant dated 8.3.2010
Ext.P5 - Postal Acknowledgement Card
Ext.P6 - Postal Acknowledgement Card
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1(series) - The user’s manual and copy of warranty card of the washing machine
