CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                      Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No 150/11

                                                            Tuesday the 29^th day of May, 2012

 

Petitioner                                               : M.G.Krishnankutty,

                                                                Muthirakalayil House,

                                                                Kalathoor PO,

                                                                Kottayam.

                                                               (Adv.Avaneesh V.N)

           

                                                            Vs.

Opposite party                                      : Whirlpool of India Ltd.

                                                                  Rep.by its Managing Director,

                                                                  D-1/A12. Ist floor

                                                                  Mohan Co-operative Industrial

                                                                  Estate New Delhi

                                                                2) Proprietor,

                                                                    Narikunnel Agencies

                                                                    Opp.Pvt.Busstand

                                                                    Kuravilangad PO,

                                                                    Kottayam.

                                                                   (Adv.Deepthy S.Nath)                  

                                   

 

 

            The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows.

            The complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine from the second opposite party, manufactured by the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.12,514/- on 20/6/09. After one year of purchase, the machine started showing malfunctioning. The complainant intimated the matter to the second opposite party and the second opposite party intimated the matter to the service office of the first opposite party. But there was no response. Again complaint was registered with the first opposite party. The service personnel came and examined the machine and understood the malfunctioning and asked to pay the service charge. As the complaint occurred during warranty period, the complainant was not willing to pay the demanded service charge.

            The complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party’s service office three more times but noting was done to cure the defect. The complainant alleged that the washing machine has manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement of the defective machine or refund of the purchase price along with compensation Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost Rs.2500/-.

            Notice was served to both the opposite parties. First opposite party called absent and was set expartee. Second opposite party filed version with the following main contentions.

i)                    The complaint is not sustainable either in law or facts

ii)                   At the time of purchase either the second opposite party or the complainant did not know that the alleged washing machine has manufacturing defect

iii)                 On 23/6/09 when the complainant approached second opposite party with a complaint regarding the washing machine, it was intimated to the authorized service centre of the first opposite party and the complaint was registered as 9019/11 on that day itself. Again this opposite party contacted the authorized service centre and regional office of the first opposite party several times but they were in a neglecting mood

iv)                 This opposite party tried our best to cure the defects of the machine, but the 1^st opposite party did not co-operate with us. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the second opposite party.

i)Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of   opposite party?

            ii)Reliefs and costs?

            Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both the parties and Exts.A1 and A2

            The complainant averred that he purchased a fully automatic washing machine for Rs.12514/-from the opposite parties on 20/6/09. Evidencing the said purchase, the complainant produced the copy of the invoice and it is marked as Ext.A1. The copy of the warranty card is also produced and it is marked as Ext.A2. From Ext.A2 it is seen that the said washing machine is having warranty for 2 years. The complaint is filed on 16^th May 2011. That means the complaint is filed within the warranty period.

            The complainant alleged that the washing machine is having manufacturing defect. The second opposite party contented in their version that they did not know about the manufacturing defect of the washing machine. The second opposite party further contented that they contacted the authorized service centre and regional office of the first opposite party several times but they were in a neglecting mood. From the aforesaid contention itself it is clear that, the neglecting mood of first opposite party might have forced the complainant to take the matter to the consumer court. The second opposite party next contented that they have tried their best to cure the defects of the machine but the first opposite party did not co-operate with them. From the contentions of the second opposite party it is clear that the first opposite party is deficient in their service.   The complainant averred that the first opposite party’s service centre demanded service charges for the repairing of the washing machine whose warranty has not expired. The complainant further averred that he contacted the first opposite party’s service centre several times but they haven’t cured the defects till now. That means the washing machine is remaining non functioning for more than one year. In our view what had happened would have definitely caused inconvenience, mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the said losses. As the complainant is having privity of contract with the second opposite party, they cannot escape from the liability. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed.

            The first and second opposite parties will jointly and severally replace the defective washing machine with a brand new washing machine of the same model or will refund the purchase price to the complainant. The first and second opposite parties will also pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- for the loss of use and mental agony suffered by the complainant Rs.1500/- as litigation cost to the complainant. After complying the order the opposite parties can take back the defective washing machine.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member                     Sd/-

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-Copy of cash receipt

Ext.A2-Copy of warranty card

Nil

By Order,

S/

Senior Superintendent