D.O.F:18/1/07<br /> D.o.O;19/9/08<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD<br /> CC.NO.5/07 <br /> Dated this, the 19th day of September 2008<br /> PRESENT:<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> B.M.Ibrahim,<br /> S/o Adhur Mohammad,<br /> R/at Bidire House, ; Complainant<br /> Vidyanagar Po, Kasaragod<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The Proprietor,<br /> MIRC Electronics Ltd,<br /> Onida House, G-I MIDC <br /> Andheri(E) , Mumbai.<br /> 2. The Manager, : Opposite party<br /> Amrith Electronics Dealers,<br /> M.G.Road, kasaragod<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant, B.M.Ibrahim purchased an Onida Washing Machine Hydro fall 6.5Kg on 29/6/06 from Amrith Electronics dealers, Kasaragod manufactured by Proprietor MIRC Electronics Ltd,Mumbai. Immediately after purchase the machine became defective and had several complaints, Ibrahim has taken the washing machine to Amrith Electronics for repair. Then it was repaired and taken back to his home. Again it went out of order on 20/12/06 and on intimation given to Amrith Electronics they sent one mechanic to the house of the complainant and on testing the machine the representative told that some parts of the machine are defective and they are to be replaced. Thereafter, Ibrahim contacted Amrith Electronics and told that the machine is not in a usable condition and beyond repair, it is of no help for the purpose for which it purchased. But inspite of repeated oral requests the 2nd opposite party postponed the replacement of washing machine. Hence complainant praying for an order against opposite parties seeking an order to replace the washing machine with a new one and a compensation of Rs.5000/- with cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> 2. First opposite party entered appearance and filed their version. Second opposite party neither turned up nor filed any version, as they have no explanations to offer. According to first opposite party, on 26/12/06 it has received a complaint through second opposite party and the service person attended the complainant on 27//12/06. After due inspection and verification it was found by the service engineers that the wash motor of the set was faulty. Since the said spare part was not available at branch, necessary arrangements were made by it to get the same from Mumbai Head office. The spare parts had come from Mumbai office on 4/1/07 and on 5/1/07 the technician /service engineer approached the complainant to rectify the problem in the washing machine but the complainant did not allow them to enter in his house and even after the said date, the complainant refused to entertain them. The further contention of the Ist opposite party is that the complainant has used the utilities of the said machine for a period of two years from the date of its purchase i.e., from 29/6/06 and he is asking replacement. The complainant is trying to misuse the right of consumer. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed with exemplary costs.<br /> 3. Ibrahim tendered evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1&A2 marked on his side. For opposite party, Arun Chandran.C has filed affidavit and Ext.B1 marked.<br /> 4. PW1 deposed that he purchased the washing machine on 29/6/06 from 2nd opposite party. The same became defective on 2/7/06 on intimation given to opposite parties and<br /> they repaired it. Again on 8/7/06 the same complaint repeated and the defects were rectified on 10/7/06. Again it became defective on 14/12/06. Hence he directly complained to Amrith Electronics on 20/12/06 again contacted them and they told that nobody is coming from service center and they asked the complainant to call them directly and a phone number also given to him. Hence on 27/12/06 he caused a lawyer notice and immediately a representative came and told that the said motor is not available and if available they will bring and there will be delay. The machine is now useless and kept in his house. Thereafter he purchased another washing machine for his use.<br /> 5. The contention of opposite party that the complainant utilized the washing machine for 2 years and filed the complaint thereafter is baseless. It is seen that the complaint is filed on 18/1/07 itself i.e., hardly seven months after its purchase. The next contention is that the complainant did not allow the technician to repair it. From the evidence tendered by PW1, it is clear that he has to contact the opposite parties many times to make a brand new model of washing machine in working order within a short span of its purchase and he might have fed up with its defects causing dissatisfaction to him.<br /> 6. The question which arises for consideration in this case is , if a washing machine gives trouble within a few days of its purchase would the consumer be satisfied with such a washing machine? Whether the act of opposite parties justified in not replacing the washing machine or refunding the purchase price instead of engaging in protracted litigation? We hold that if a new washing machine gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied, in such a case the manufacturing company is not justified in protracting litigation.<br /> 7. Unfortunately , we have not developed a tendency of accepting the defects or defaults. The tendency of accepting the defects or default is required to be encouraged. In a number of cases we have seen that the manufacturers are spending more than the value of the subject matter involved to defend the cases.<br /> 8. From the evidence adduced by Ibrahim as PW1, it is clear that the washing machine he purchases worth Rs.6000/- has not provided him any satisfaction. The opposite parties are liable either to substitute or refund the price paid to it. PW1 deposed that since the disputed washing machine is useless he purchased another one for his use. Hence the replacement of the disputed washing machine is not necessary and the refund of purchase price is proper or justifiable.<br /> Therefore, we allow the complaint and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.6000/- to Ibrahim. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.500/- towards the cost of the proceedings. On receipt of the amount, complainant shall return the washing machine to Second opposite party in as is where is condition. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts.A1-Dt.29/6/06- cash bill<br /> A2- User’s manual<br /> B1-Terms & Conditions of the warranty<br /> PW1-B.M.Ibrahim-complainant<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> eva/ <br />