CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2016

PRESENT  : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT                   Date of filing:11/11/2015

                         : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER                

                  : SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC/173/2015

S/o.K.Udayavarman,                                                      :Complainant

Harisharanam House,

                                              Vs

1. The Proprietor,

Jamal Sales Corporation, Court Road,

2. The Manager, BSH House Hold Appliances,                         : Opposite Parties

Manufacturing P.Ltd, No.39/3370,

Manikkath Road, Ravipuram, Cochin.

     (By Adv.E.Krishnadas)                                                              

                                                     O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

          Brief facts of this Case.

          The Complainant has purchased a washing machine which is under bosch company from Jamal Sales Corporation(Palakkad) on 7/6/2014 (Model No:WAX16160IN/03, Sl.No.930800816).  After the product reached his home, when they opened the washing machine they found that the front door of the machine was broken.  Immediately they informed Jamal Sales Corporation.  A mechanic from the shop came and replaced it.  After requesting for a long time through phone only the company had sent a mechanic for the demonstration .  On 21/6/2014 finally the company provided the demonstration of the machine.

          Again on 9/8/2014 the machine got some complaint and the mechanic came for repairing.  At that time, the mechanic found that the dispenser box inside the machine has broken.  We requested the company about the replacing of the machine On 22/9/2014. The dispenser box which was broken was replaced by the mechanic.  In between they had found that the soap tray has also cracked from inside.  Again they contacted the service centre.  The mechanic came on 30/8/2014 to replace the machine.  They request to replace the machine to the company by written in the job sheet.  But we didn’t get any response.  Later on the company informed that they don’t have any procedure to replace the machine under any case.

          After few days, we found that the machine’s drum is filling water by itself.  Sometimes the water may overflow into the rooms.  We again contacted the company.  A mechanic from there came to repair the machine on 8/9/2015 and found that the water intaking valve is not working.  On 14/9/2015 the water intaking valve has been replaced.  All of sudden a day, while the machine was working.  We found that a loud sound was coming out from the machine and the vibration of the machine was in very high level.  Again we contacted the company for checking the machine, they found that the machine alignment is not stable on 4/11/2015.

          They told the mechanic not to repair the machine.  They want to replace the machine.  The machine is in under warranty of two years(From 7/6/2014 to 6/6/2014).  Now the machine is in useless condition.

          He had brought the machine for his wife, because she can’t take much strain on household works as she is suffering from some health problems(Allergy, breathing trouble).  But he had faced many problems after buying this machine.  It was such a money loss and time loss for him.  He was unable to reach for many works on time, whenever the mechanic came for repairing.  All the time when the mechanic came for repairing he informed them to take necessary step to replace the machine.  But they didn’t respond to it.  He had wasted his time by calling to the company and registering his problem to them.  He felt really disappointed for purchasing the machine.  From the date of purchasing the machine he is not satisfied with it and its service.  It mentally hurted him a lot.  He has kept a servant for washing clothes due to the machines complaint.  It was also a money loss for him.

          He would like to get back the cost of good which he had spent for the machine(Amount Rs.29600/-).  The compensation of the loss which he had faced after the purchasing of the machine such as the money loss.  The time loss and mental dissatisfaction.  He would like to get a compensation amount of Rs.70000/- for the difficulties he had suffered, due to the deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties(Total Rs.99600/-)  

          The complaint was admitted and notice was issue to opposite parties.  Although notice was served on 1^st opposite party their name called absent and was set exparte. 

          In the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party in the above case they contend that the said complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts.   

1. The above complaint filed by the complainant is neither maintainable in law nor on facts.  Al the averments in the petition except those which are specifically admitted here under are hereby denied by this opposite party.  There is absolutely no cause of action and the complaint is to be dismissed in limine as the same is filed without any bonafides.

2. The averment in the 1^st paragraph of the complaint that the complainant had purchased a washing machine from the 1^st opposite party is true.  The averment that after the product reached the home of the complainant and the washing machine was opened it was found that the front door of the machine was broken and immediately it was informed to the 1^st opposite party and a mechanic from the shop came and replaced it is not known to this opposite party and hence denied.  The averment that it was only after requesting for a long time the company had sent a mechanic for the demonstration and that on 21.06.2014 finally the company provided the demonstration for the machine is false and hence denied by this opposite party.  As soon as this opposite party received the information, it had sent its staff and the installation was done on 21.06.2014 which was the convenient time given by the complainant.
3. The averment in the 2^nd paragraph of the complaint that on 9.8.2014 the machine has got some complaint and the mechanic came for repairing and at that time found that the dispenser box inside the machine has broken and that they requested to the company about replacing the machine and that on 22.09.2014 the dispenser box was replaced is not entirely true.  That this opposite party received a complaint that water is not taking and this opposite party got the machine inspected on 19.8.2014 and found that the water pressure was low.  Even though the visit was not covered under warranty the cleaning and inspection was done on Free of charge.  That this opposite party received a complaint that water is leaking and this opposite party got the machine inspected on 30.8.2014 and found that the dispenser tray had cracked.  The complainant requested the repair of the machine on another day as he had some emergent work and the staff of this opposite party visited the site and found that the tray was broken due to the rough usage and even though warranty was not available for plastic parts, this opposite party got the part replaced free of cost on 22.9.2014 and even educated the customer as to how the dispenser tray is to be opened.  The further averment that on 22.09.2014 it was found that the soap tray was cracked from inside and that the service centre was contacted again and the mechanic came again on 30.8.2014 to replace the machine etc., are all false and hence denied.
4. The averment in the 3^rd paragraph of the complaint that after a few a days it was found that the machine’s drum is being filled with water and that sometimes the water may overflow into the rooms and that the company was again contacted and a mechanic came to repair the same on 8.9.2015 and it was found that the intake valve was not working is not entirely true.  The machine was working without any

problem for nearly one year.  After about an year, this opposite party got a complaint that the machine is not working and a service personnel visited the site on 8.9.2015 and found that the inlet valve was defective due to the blockage of dust and dirt particles and also because the machine was operated with low water pressure.  The complainant was advised to ensure that clean water is supplied to the machine.  The inlet valve was replaced and the machine was in perfect working condition.  Even if the fault happened was not covered under manufacturing defect the spare part inlet valve was replaced free of charge to customer.  The further averment that on 14.9.2015 the water intake valve was replaced 4.11.2015 and all of a sudden it was found that a loud sound was coming out from the machine and the vibration of the machine was in very high level and  that it was found that the alignment is not stable on 4.11.2015 is not true and hence denied.  This opposite party had received a complaint that there is noise in the machine and a demand was made to replace the machine as it was in a useless condition.  The service personnel of this opposite party visited the site on and it was observed that the machine was moved by the complainant from where it was installed thus causing imbalance due to the difference in floor level.  On 14.11.2015 the technician visited the site again based on request from customer and found that the bottom screw was loose due to the machine being moved and tightened the same and the machine was found to be in perfect working condition.

5. The averments in the 4^th and 5^th paragraph are absolutely false and hence denied.  There is absolutely no reason to replace the machine as the issues are only due to the normal wear and tear of a washing machine and the complainant was always given proper service.  Even though there is no warranty for plastic items, some parts were replaced free of cost.  But now the complainant is taking things for granted and after using the machine for more than one and half years, wants the machine replaced.  The averment that the company never responded to the calls of the complainant is absolutely false and hence denied.  The complainant was always given prompt service.  The only attempt of the complainant is to somehow or the other get a new washing machine at the cost of this opposite party.  The complainant is put to strict proof the allegations in the complaint.  The demand of the complainant for the replacement of the washing machine cannot be entertained as per the terms and conditions of replacement in the warranty.  This opposite party had given the best of its services on the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty.

6. There is absolutely no fault or deficiency on the part of this opposite party.  There is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party.  The only look out of the complainant seems to be undue financial gain.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the compensation claimed is without any basis.  The complainant is put to strict proof regarding the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Hence this Hon’ble Forum may kindly be pleased to accept the contentions of this opposite party and dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs and the same is prayed for.

          Complainant filed chief affidavit. Although notices were sent to 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party, 1^st opposite party’s name called absent and were therefore set exparte.  They did not file their version and chief affidavit.  2^nd opposite party file their version and chief affidavit.  Complainant filed original documents.  Exts.A1, A2 & A4 were marked and Ext.A3 was marked in series.  2^nd opposite party filed   IA 322/16   seeking permission to cross examine complainant and  no objection was submitted.  Hence IA allowed.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1.  Complainant filed an application to appoint an expert commission.  Opposite party raised no objection in IA for appointing commission.  But panel was not produced by the complainant.

          The following issues come up in this case.

1. Whether there is any negligence/deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
2. If so what is the relief?

Issues 1&2

          In this case, the complainant purchased a washing machine on 07.06.2014 which is manufactured by Bosch company from 1^st opposite party –Model No-WAX16160IN/03, Sl.No.930800816.  The invoice was marked as Ext.A1.  The purchase price was Rs.29600/-and the warranty period was 2 years.  The warranty card was marked as Ext.A2.  2^nd opposite party visited the complainant’s house through their technicians namely Nithin, Sreekumar, Vijesh gopi and Binu.M and did the repairs of the said washing machine.  The work order details were marked as Ext.A3 series.  The above said technicians did the repairs of the said washing machine.  The 1^st visit was for demonstration; the second one was for checking the machine and found that water pressure was low.  During the third visit the machine was checked and found that soap tray covering cracked; in the fourth visit the machine was checked dispenser box was found broken and the same was replaced.  In the fifth visit, it was found that water

intake valve was not working and the same was replaced.  During the sixth visit machine alignment was not stable and the customer was not ready for repairs.

          A letter was sent by the complainant dated 4/11/2015 to the 2^nd opposite party for replacing the said washing machine; the letter was marked as Ext.A4 which mentioned that the complaint was not satisfied till now and they did not want the repair facility any more.  They also requested 2^nd opposite party to take necessary steps to replace the washing machine.

          According to the 2^nd opposite party as soon as they received the information they sent their staff and the installation of the washing machine was done on 18.06.2014 which was the convenient time given by the complainant.  On receiving a complaint that water was leaking 2^nd opposite party got the machine inspected on 29/8/2014 and found that the dispenser tray had cracked which was replaced.  On the request of the complainant for repair of the machine on another day 2^nd opposite party’s staff visited the site and found that the tray was broken due to the rough usage and even though warranty was not available for plastic parts 2^nd opposite party replaced the dispenser tray free of cost on 23/9/2014 and also educated the customer regarding the opening of the dispenser.  The machine was working without any problem  for about one year.  Afterwards on receiving a complaint service personnel visited the site on 07/09/2015 and found that the inlet valve was defective due to the blockage of dust and dirt particles and also because the machine was operated with low water pressure.  The complainant was advised to ensure that clean water was supplied to the machine.  The inlet valve was replaced and the machine was in perfect working conditions.  On receiving a complaint that there was noise in the machine and a demand was made to replaced the useless machine, the service personnel of 2^nd opposite party visited the site on 03/11/2015 and it was observed that the machine was moved by the complainant from where it was installed thereby causing imbalance due to the difference in floor level on 14/11/2015 the technician of 2^nd opposite party visited the site and found that the bottom screw was loose due to the machine movement and tightened the screw and the machine was found to be in good working condition.  The issues to the machine were only due to the normal wear and tear of a washing machine.  There is no warranty for plastic items.  According to 2^nd opposite party complainant was always given prompt  service.

          From the above we view that the complainant cannot prove the existence of manufacturing defect because he did not find out an expert commissioner to inspect the washing machine in order to find out whether the said machine suffers from any manufacturing defect . As per the letter filed by the complainant dated 26/4/2016 he has expressed that “ as per the demand made by the court to inspect the washing machine by an expert, but I couldn’t find such an expert for the inspection”.  Further when he was cross examined as PW1 on 4/10/2016 he told the court that   “ 2-mw FXrI£n A¶pw C¶pw sajo³ repair

sNbvXp Xcmsa¶v ]dbpIbmWv F¶v ]dªm Rm³ willing AÃ.  F\n¡v C\n sajo³ th­. ss]k X¶m aXn”

          This oral evidence given by the complainant in the case his unwillingness to get the machine repaired by 2^nd opposite party.  Further as per the warranty terms and conditions, the companies obligations under this warranty shall be limited to repairing and providing

replacement of defective parts only.  The warranty does not cover consumables, normal wear and tear falls, plastic, glass and /or rubber parts, non operational parts and related accessories.  At the same time we also observe that the washing machine has to be got repaired and some main parts have to be replaced during the guarantee period of 2 years of this washing machine.  Therefore, both 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite parties are liable for thoroughly repairing the machine.

          Hence the complaint is partly allowed. 

          Therefore we order the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party to be jointly and severally liable to thoroughly repair the machine to make it in a perfect working condition and to give Rs.6000/-for the mental agony and sufferings undergone by the complainant because of some defective parts in the washing machine and due to dissatisfied use of the washing machine.

          The aforesaid amount should be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of this order till realization.

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th  day of October  2016. 

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                               Shiny. P.R

                                                                                              President

                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                       Suma. K.P                                                                                                                            Member

                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                     V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                                                                                     Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  – The invoice dated 7.6.2014 

Ext.A2 –   The warranty card

Ext.A3 series(6 Nos)- The work order details. Dated 7.6.2014

Ext.A4- Complainant’s complaint to the opposite party (Replacing of machine.) Dated 4.11.2015

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1-Balakrishnan.M

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Cost allowed

Nil