BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 12/2012 Filed on 10.01.2012

Dated: 30.06.2014

Complainant:

A. Padmanabha Iyer, S/o late Annaswamy Iyer, Krishna Kripa, T.C 20/3164(1), D.B. Street, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

                                  (By adv. Renjith. C. Nair)

Opposite parties:

 

1. The Managing Director, Whirlpool of India Ltd., B1/ A12, 1^st Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110 044.

               (By adv. Jaideep G. Nair)

2. The Manager/Proprietor, NDN CSD Station Canteen, Pangode, Thiruvananthapuram.

Additional Opposite party:

1. The Manager, Hitech Solutions, Whirlpool Authorized service, T.C 14/1733, Opp: Ganapathi Kovil, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

    

This C.C having been heard on 13.06.2014, the Forum on 30.06.2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI: MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a washing machine from the 2^nd opposite party.  The advertisement made by the 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer is that washing machine is ‘Whirlpool White Magic’ and believing the same he purchased the washing machine on 10.05.2008.  From the first week of purchase, the machine shows some patent defects.  Instead of making white clothes white, clothes turned to black after washing.  The complainant sent timely complaint to the company and they sent one to inspect and repair the machine.  But even after the repair same defect continued and on 11.05.2009 some works were made by the complainant for Rs. 945/- with the additional opposite party authorized service centre of the complainant.  Thereafter on 08.03.2010 the machine was taken by the company to their workshop and returned on 17.03.2010 with a bill of Rs. 2,500/-.  The complaint was done within the guarantee period and the complainant refused to pay the bill, but he was forced to pay Rs. 300/- towards transportation charges.  On 24.07.2010 the company took the machine to service and returned the machine on 30.07.2010 with same defect.  Even after continuous complaints made by the complainant opposite parties never made any effort to solve the problem.  The complainant after fed up with inactive attitude of the opposite parties issued advocate notice, but no action has been taken by them.  There is manufacturing defect for the washing machine and which caused difficulties to the complainant and there is clear deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for replacing the washing machine with a brand new machine to return Rs. 13,977/- , Rs. 1,245/- the amount complainant had spent Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs. 

Notice being served to the opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party filed version and 2^nd and additional 3^rd opposite party remains exparte.

The 1^st opposite party in their version stated that a minor crack had occurred in the tub seal and it was slightly affecting the quality of the machine and it is not correct to say that clothes had turned black.  The said tub seal was replaced free of cost and thus said defect was rectified by this opposite party.  The rectified machine was also used by the complainant.  The averment with regard to the amount of Rs. 945/- is absolutely vague and proper explanation can be given only on production of the bill.  It is denied that this opposite party had asked the complainant to pay service charge during the warranty period.  The service done by this opposite party during warranty period is free of costs and no amount for transportation charges was collected from the complainant.  The complaint was again reported by the complainant that the clothes used in the machine had traces of grease.  The said complaint may arise as a result of the damage of the tub seal of the machine during course of time or the dirt settling inside the agitator.  The service officials of this party approached the complainant immediately but he did not allow the service officials to inspect the product which was installed in his house.  The complainant purchased the machine in 2008and used it for 3 years.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party or didn’t cause any mental agony or hardship to the complainant and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

Complainant filed affidavit and produced 4 documents and are marked as Exts. P1 to P4.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  1^st opposite party neither filed affidavit nor documents.  A commission report was also seen filed. 

Issues arised for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is eligible for the reliefs as sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a washing machine from the 2^nd opposite party on 10.05.2008 and trouble started from first week itself.  On 11.05.2009 also some works were made by the additional 3^rd opposite party authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party on payment.  The defect occurred many times during the warranty period itself.  But the defect was not rectified fully.  So the complainant approached this Forum for relief.  Only the 1^st opposite party filed version.  Even though there is no document from the side of complainant to show that the machine was inspected and defect was once rectified by the opposite party, the 1^st opposite party in their version itself it was admitted that the machine is having some defect and it was rectified by them.  Again in the version they admitted that repeated complaint was lodged by the complainant.  The complainant was cross examined by the 1^st opposite party and while cross examination they put a question whether the complainant took any measures to show the present condition of the machine. (Q) He said ‘No’.  On 24.08.2012 the complainant filed a commission application for inspecting the machine.  Commission application was allowed and commissioner was appointed.  After inspection he filed report, but no objection was filed by the 1^st opposite party also.  So the report stands unchallenged.  The commissioner filed a detailed report with photographs.  In the report he states that the present condition of the washing machine and also adds that it is not able to wash clothes using this washing machine due to the technical failure.  Another contention raised by 1^st opposite party while cross examination is that the Ext. P1 bill is not in the name of complainant.  But the 1^st opposite party in their version admits that the washing machine with the complainant was repaired by their officials.  So it is clear that the complainant is having a machine manufactured by 1^st opposite party and it is defective within the warranty period itself.  The machine was purchased in the year 2008, the trouble started from the next week of purchase itself.  On considering the overall situation we are of the view that there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine and the complainant tried his maximum to prove his case.  There is no evidence from the side of the complainant to show the amount spent by him while repairing was for Rs. 5,000/-.  But the opposite parties 1 & 3 are liable to compensate for the loss occurred due to the deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties.  The opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed to replace the washing machine with a new one as repair was already done and no result was seen or to refund Rs. 13,977/- being the price of the washing machine. 

In the result, complaint is allowed by directing the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties to replace the washing machine with a new one or to refund Rs. 13,977/- the price of the washing machine along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs within one month of the date of receipt of this order.  If the washing machine is not replaced as directed above and on failure to comply with the other directions on time, the opposite parties 1 & 3 are liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% from the date of default till payment for the price of the washing machine which amounts to Rs. 13,977/-.  It is also made clear that if washing machine is not replaced within one month the complainant is entitled for the value of washing machine with interest as ordered above.

   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 30^th day of June 2014.

Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

          Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

 

jb

 

C.C. No. 12/2012

APPENDIX

 

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Padmanabha Iyer

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

          P1     - Copy of bill No. 7029 dated 10.05.2008 for Rs. 13,977/-.

          P2     - Copy of advocate notice dated 18.11.11 to 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties

          P3     - Copy of postal receipt dated 22.11.2011

          P4     - Copy of acknowledgement card dated 25.11.2011.

 

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

 

 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

 

jb