Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/61/2020

Sri.S.Prakash S/o Siddaramappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Properietor,Pai International Electronics ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.Thimmanna

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:61/2020

DATED: 21^st  October 2022

 

PRESENT: -     Kum. H.N. MEENA, PRESIDENT

                       Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM., LL.B., MEMBER       

                        Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

                      

COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. S.Prakash S/o Siddaramappa, Aged about 50 years, Advocate, R/o Jogimatti Road, KSRTC layout, 2nd cross, Chitradurga ( Rep by Sri. C. Thimmanna, Advocate)
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1. The Proprietor, Pai International Electronics ltd., RKR Plaza,                 Opposite to Shankar Talkies, Chitradurga. (Rep by Sri. Dheerendra Prasad, Advocate)   2. Authorized Signatory, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., No A 25,Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial estate, New Delhi 110044. (Rep by Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao Advocate)

:ORDER:

 

Sri. G. SREEPATHI, MEMBER              

 

This is a complaint filed by complainant under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Through this complaint, complainant prays before this Honourable Commission to pass orders against opponents to replace defective washing machine or to return cost of Rs.33,000/- paid for purchase of Washing Machine, Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- towards spoilage of cloths, for service deficiency Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation and to grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble commission deems fit by allowing this complaint.

Facts is brief:

        2. It is alleged that opponent-1 is the proprietor of Pai International Electronics Ltd. and opponent-2 is the manufacturer of washing machine.  On 16/02/2020 complainant has purchased sumsung model WMWW 70J42EOWTL washing machine to his House from opponent No.1 after making payment of cost of Rs.33,000/-. It is alleged by the complainant that as per the belief of opponents in respect of warranty and Guarantee for 10 years for the said machine he has purchased the same.

        3. Complainant submits that, even on using washing machine subtly and ticklishly, when the cloths are put into the washing machine, the clothes get damaged by holes. The same was intimated by the complainant to opponent No.1 in-person and they told that on visit of their company experts and their report, they agreed to change the machine. Till date no experts from Opponent Company have visited complainant House. Even on contacting them over phone they have given breeziness reply.  With inadequate service of opponents, Complainant has incurred spoilage of cloth to the extent of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- faced service deficiency and mental agony. With this act of opponent-1 clearly reveals that they have adopted unfair trade practice. Complainant has issued legal notice to opponent-1 and 2, opponent-1 have not given any reply and opponent-2 have replied to notice by denying all facts. The same is within the jurisdiction of this commission. Hence, filed this complaint.

 

        4. Upon service of notice, opponents appeared and filed their version. In the version filed by opponent-1, they have admitted that he is a dealer of Samsung product and not a manufacturer, only seller of Samsung product. Hence he is not liable for manufacturing defect. Opponent-1 is asserting that they have provided good and quality service to the complainant. The opponent No.2 appeared and submits in their version that, complainant has filed this complaint with mischievous intention, also due to non-joinder of proper and necessary party in this proceedings complaint is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. The same was filed by the complainant by making false allegation, with bald pleading and not supported with expert evidence. The said complaint is filed only on the base of Invoice copy, warranty literature coupled with oral allegations, seeking refund of washing machine price and other monetary benefits. Opponent-2 have denied that the washing machine covers 10 years warranty and Guarantee. The complainant failed to go through the warranty literature carefully before making false allegation.

 

5. Further submits that opponent-1 being a dealer will never give any assurance beyond company warranty policy. On 18/02/2020 opponent-2 service engineer has installed the said unit by providing demo for operation of said washing machine. Opponent-2 denied further allegation made in complaint. That after service request from complainant on 01/08/2020 service engineer visited the complainant House and after thorough inspection and more particularly the washing machine drum, the engineer could not found any defect in any part which may lead to damage of cloths as alleged by complainant during washing. The service engineer also requested complainant to put non-damaged cloth for full wash and also informed the complainant, that they will wait till the end of washing process. Service Engineer also informed and assured complainant that, if any clothes were damaged during washing process, suitable steps will be taken to solve the issue. But for the same complainant has not co-operated with the Service Engineer. The opponent-2 have quoted Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling in a case Maruthi udyog Ltd. V/s Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and others, as per opponent-2 warranty precondition, opponent-2 is bound for replacement of defective part only and not liable to refund or replacement of product. Hence they have taken contention that the claim for refund of unit price is liable to be rejected. Under these grounds and documentary evidence opponent-2 prays before this commission to dismiss the complaint in the interest of Justice.

        6. Opponent-2 submitted service order for having provided service to complainant and a letter written to complainant counsel which were marked as Ex.B-1 to B-3. Opponent-2 have re-iterated the point of warranty literature that “…In the unlikely event of your product failure, Samsung shall only repair the unit. If parts need to be replaced for repair, Samsung shall replace with parts which are tested and verified for quality…”    Accordingly opponent-2 pray for dismissal of complaint.

       

        7. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and documents, which were marked at Ex.A-1 to A-21. Also produced spoiled cloth and marked as M.O.1 to 4.

 

        8. On behalf of opponent No.1 Komalesh, Branch Manager examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and not filed any documents. Further on behalf of opponent No.2 Arshil C.A. Area Sales Manager examined as DW-2 by filing affidavit evidence and filed documents, the same were marked as Ex.B-1 to B-3.

 

9. The following points arise for our consideration:

 

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of the OP’s?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

2) What Order?

 

10. Our finding on the above points are as follows:

Point No. (1) & (2): Partly Affirmative.

Point No. (3): As per final order.

 

REASONS

      11. Point No.1 & 2: It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant has purchased said washing machine from opponent No.1 which is manufactured by opponent No.2 after making payment of cost of Rs.33,000/-. For the same opponent-1 have issued Invoice along with warranty card. Hence he became a consumer. Complainant while started using the machine, problem started in the machine and for the same he has issued legal notice to both the OPs on 30/07/2020 for which opponent No.1 have not given any reply and opponent No.2 have given reply by denying all facts of the legal notice issued by complainant. Afterwards complainant filed this complaint before this Hon’ble Commission seeking prayer that to pass orders against opponents as prayed in the complaint and he has submitted Invoice for having purchased washing machine, warranty card and other documents and also spoiled cloth, the same were marked.

        12. On the other hand opponent No.1 filed version admitting about purchase of washing machine from them and taking contention in their version and also evidence filed by way affidavit, that OP-1 is only a dealer by selling different types of products and not a manufacturer and hence they were not liable for manufacturing defect. Opponent No.2 have filed their version and evidence by way of affidavit and contended that as per warranty precondition opponent No.2 is bound for replacement of defective part only and not liable to refund or replacement of product. For the same opponent No.2 have referred case law, Maruthi Udyog Ltd. V/s Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and others along with documents. On perusal of the same we come to conclusion that the same is not relevant to this case.

        13. That as reported in … CPR 2016, page-35 before the Hon’ble National Commission in a case between,  Hind Motors India Ltd., and Another V/s Jodh Singh & others, it is cited that, “Manufacturing defect is to be taken care of by the manufacturer only”.

In another case reported in CPR 2016 (4) page 206 before the Hon’ble National Commission between, Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd., & Another - Appellant V/s Giraj Kishore Bansal & others - Respondent, it is cited that “ for manufacturing defect dealer cannot  be held responsible”.

In another case reported in CPR-2017 (2) page 524 before the Hon’ble National commission in Revision Petition between Manager, Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner V/s Leela Sahu and another- Respondent, it is cited that “Dealer of goods cannot be held liable for manufacturing defect”. Hence we are of the considered view that the complaint against OP-1 deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. The complaint is maintainable only against OP-2. We have carefully gone through the records submitted by the complainant and also opponent-2. On perusal of the service Job sheet and reply letter produced by OP-2 we are of the view that OP-2 have delayed in providing proper service within time to the complainant & also failed to substantiate that the machine is free from defect with this complainant has faced service deficiency and also unnecessary cost.

         As reported in CPR 2019(1) Page-356 before the Hon’ble National Commission in a case between, Vila India - Appellant V/s Maratha Mandal Institute of Dental Sciences - Respondent, it is cited that, “It is responsibility of supplier company to depute qualified service Engineers to determine fault and to ensure that requisite parts were duly available and to rectify fault promptly and dutifully at Just cost”.

In view of the discussions referred above, the complaint requires to be allowed in part against OP-2. Accordingly this point No.1 & 2 held as partly affirmative.

 

14. Point No.3: For the foregoing reason, we pass the following:

 

::ORDER::

        The complaint as against OP No.1 is dismissed.

The complaint as against the OP No.2 is hereby allowed in part.

        The opponent No.2 is directed to return cost of washing machine Rs.33, 000/- or to replace the defective washing machine by giving new Washing machine.

The OP No.2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) towards compensation Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of litigation expenses to the complainant.

The OP No.2 shall comply with the order within 30 days from the date of this order.

Supply free copy of this order to the parties. Return spare copies of pleading and evidence to the parties.

(Dictated to the Steno, typed by him transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by the open commission on 21st October 2022.)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

         

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Sri. S.Prakash S/o Siddaramappa, by way of affidavit     

            evidence.

Witness examined on behalf of opponents:

DW-1: Sri. Komalesh S/o Dharmappa B.B., Branch Manager, by way of  

           affidavit evidence.

 

DW-2: Sri. Arshil, C.A. S/o Abdul Rehaman, Area Service Manager, by

           way of affidavit of evidence.

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Original Invoice dated 16/02/2020
02	Ex-A-2:-	Warranty card
03	Ex-A-3:-	Legal Notice dated 30/07/2020
04	Ex-A-4:-	Reply letter dated 02/09/2020
05	Ex-A-5:-	Acknowledgement receipt dated 30/07/2020
06	Ex-A-6 to 19:-	Photos of cloths
07	Ex-A-20:-	C.D.
08	Ex-A-21:-	Photo of washing machine

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

 

DW-1: Nil

 

DW-2:     

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Service job sheet No.4307032354
02	Ex-B-2:-	Service job sheet No.4307032354
03	Ex-B-3:-	Copy of reply dated 02/09/2020

 

 

       

 

 

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

GM