THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 225/2015

Dated this the 7^th day of December 2017

                     (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.             :  President)

                          Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A             : Member

                          Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB   : Member

ORDER

Present: Joseph Mathew, Member:

            This petition is filed by the petitioner under section 12of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.        Petitioner’s case is that, he had purchased a fully automatic Washing Machine bearing serial No.10643062111 B082300055214 from the 1^st opposite party manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on 14.11.2009.  Believing the attractive advertisement made by the 2^nd opposite party in various newspapers and other visual Medias, he had purchased the product of the 2^nd opposite party.  It was functioning smoothly during the earlier days of its purchase.

            It is stated by the petitioner that, later some sounds and noises were developed while working the machine and gradually it stopped functioning.  This was informed to the 1^st opposite party and as per their advice he took the machine to their service centre MAHE COOL MECH at Cherode.  After examination they told him that the problem was due to the Assembling Defect, a major manufacturing defect which cannot be cured.  They advised to purchase a new one in place of the said defective machine.  Now the machine is kept idle. According to the petitioner since the defect is manufacturing in nature, the opposite parties are bound to replace the washing machine with a defect free new one.  Even after repeated requests the opposite parties didn’t  care to consider his demands and so on 13.11.2014 he had issued a Lawyers notice to the opposite parties demanding replacement of the defective washing machine with a defect free new one and Rs.25000/- as compensation for his mental agony and other inconveniences.  Though the opposite parties received the notice, they didn’t comply his demands or even cared to send a reply to that notice.  The said act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on their part.  Hence this petition seeking reliefs. 

            The 1^st opposite party received the notice issued from this Forum but didn’t turn up or filed version.  The notice issued to the 2^nd opposite party returned.  So the petitioner send an e-mail message to the 2^nd opposite party stating the pendency of this complaint.  This message was received by them but they also didn’t appear or filed version.  Hence both the opposite parties set ex-parte.

            The petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of his petition and produced 4 numbers of documents as evidence on his side and was marked as Exts.A1 to A4.

            According to petitioner, the washing machine purchased from the 1^st opposite party manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party functioned smoothly during the earlier days and gradually it became defective and finally stopped functioning.  After examination the service personnel’s of the 1^st opposite party told him that the machine is having some manufacturing defects beyond repair and advised him to buy a new one.  Even after repeated requests and lawyers notice demanding replacement and compensation, they are not ready to comply his demands.  This is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            Ext.A3 is the warranty Registration Card.  As per Ext.A3, the warranty is for 2 years.  Admittedly the Washing Machine was purchased on 1411.2009.  As such the warranty ends on 13.11.2011.  The petitioner has not stated in his petition when the machine started complaints and when he had entrusted the same at the service centre of the 1^st opposite party ie. Whether it was within the warranty period or not?  The service request and the service card issued by the opposite parties was produced and marked as Ext.A1 and A2.  But in Exts.A1 or A2 there was no mention regarding the date of entrustment of the machine with the 1^st opposite party.  The copy of Lawyers notice Ext.A4 is dtd.13.11.2014.  This shows that the Lawyer notice was issued after 3 years of the expiry of the warranty period.  More over the reasons for the inordinate delay in sending the lawyer notice has not been explained by the petitioner also.  Thus there is no evidence before us to see that the defect of the machine was occurred within the warranty period and the petitioner had informed this matter to the opposite parties immediately and they had denied replacement. In the absence of evidence to see that the defect in the machine was occurred within the warranty period, we cannot direct the opposite parties for replacement or return of its purchase price. As the petitioner had failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with supportive evidence we are of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the petition.         

                               In the result this petition is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dated this 7^th day of December 2017.

Date of filing: 21.04.2015.

               SD/-MEMBER                                               SD/-PRESIDENT                    SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.  Service request Form dtd.15.11.14.

A2. Service Card No.374 dtd. Nil

A3. Warranty Registration Card.

A4. Lawyer notice issued to the opposite party dtd.13.11.2014.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

Nil

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None

                                                                                                                                                              Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT