Counsel For complainant : M/s. B. Anitha, Advocate
Counsel For Opposite Party : M/s. B. Kamarajan, Advocate
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 01.07.2015 in the presence M/s. B. Anitha, Advocate on the side of the complainant and M/s. B. Kamarajan, Advocate Appeared on the side of the Opposite Party and upon hearing arguments on the side of the both and perused the documents evidence, this Forum, delivered the following.
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite party for seeking direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.12,000/- for the cost of the washing machine, Rs. 20,000/- towards the mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, due to handwork, Rs.5000/- towards phone expenses with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The Brief Facts of the Complaint are as follows:
1. The Complainant had purchased a Videocon Washing Machine in her son’s name J. Surendran on 14.04.2008 from “Next Retail Shop” at No. 225, Madhavaram High Road, Preambur, Chennai – 600 011, bearing product code No. K6200DX. At the time of purchase of this Washing Machine she was residing at Kodungaiyur and subsequently she shifted to Tiruvallur, during the year of December 2011. When she was washing the clothes through the washing Machine she came to notice about the rust and dirt were found on the washed clothes and she immediately contacted the customer care through phone and they have registered complainant’s complaint and they have referred one Mr. Arunkumar for this complaint from the opposite party’s company who is the authorized Videocon service center. That on 7.9.2012 mechanic Mr. Arunkumar came to complainant’s house and he inspected the washing machine and told the complainant that, that washing machine has to be undergone for acid wash and he charged Rs.2,200/- totally and he took an advance of Rs.1000/- on 7.9.2012 and on 10.9.2012 this complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.1,200/-. That on 8.9.2012 he took the washing machine from the complainant’s house on 10.9.2012 he delivered the washing machine to this complainant and at the time of delivery there was no power supply at complainant’s house so this complainant was unable to check the washing machine. After getting the power supply this complainant called the mechanic Mr. Arunkumar from the opposite party company through phone but he never turned up to pick up the complainant’s phone call.
2. When she put the machine into running condition she came to note that there was water leakage from the washing machine. That on 11.9.2012, again the complainant contacted the opposite party and one Mr. Damodaran from opposite party’s company came and visited the washing machine and told this complainant that he wanted to take the washing machine to the company and on that basis on 12.09.2012 mehanic Damodaran took the machine for service to the company. Nearly one month have elapsed this complainant was not delivered with the washing machine. When she contacted through phone the opposite party was not responding to her phone calls and she directly also visited the opposite party company for her machine delivery.
3. During this period the complainant was suffering from back pain due to hand wash of the clothes. Due to this hand wash this complainant was severely suffered from back pain and stomach ache she was hospitalized. After she came back from the hospital she directly visited the opposite party company on 23.10.2012 for the delivery of the washing machine but the opposite party failed to deliver the same on 24.10.2012 the washing machine was delivered to the complainant by 7.30 p.m. After getting delivery of the same the complainant shocked to see that excepting outer part of the washing machine the entire part i.e., stod drum, motor have been replaced by the opposite party and moreover the machine. That after noticing all these defects in the machine the complainant immediately again called the opposite party on 25.10.2012 one Mr. Pavithran from the opposite party’s company attended this complaint but he failed to repair the same. Again that on 26.10.2012 the complainant had contacted the opposite party through phone but the opposite party have failed to pick up the phone calls of the complainant. Due to this irresponsibility this complainant had sent a registered letter on 29.10.2012 to the opposite party, but this complainant had not received any reply for her letter. Subsequently on 28.11. 2012 the complainant also sent legal notice to the opposite party but there was no reply from the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
Written Version Filed by the Opposite party;
2. All the allegation made in the complainant are all false and frivolous and infact as per the willing of the complainant only plastic drum was fixed due to the electricity power cut, it could not be tested and thereafter the service man attached to the opposite party came to the house of the complainant, she want only not allowed the service man to make repair in the hand washing machine. It is further stated by the opposite party that in order to get sympathy the complainant has falsely stated that she was suffered of back pain due to hand wash. The real fact is that even the service man came to the complainant’s house in person for several times, the complaint only not permitted to rectify the defects not as alleged by the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the proof affidavit filed as her evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked. While so, the opposite party filed the Proof Affidavit and ExB1 marked.
4. At this juncture, the main point for consideration before this forum, is,
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other relief the complainant is entitled?
5. Written Arguments submitted by the sides and the copy of the same is furnished to either side.
6. Point No:- 1 Regarding this point, on careful perusal of the proof affidavit of the complainant, it is learnt that on 06.09.2012, when the complainant was washing the clothes through the washing machine which was purchased on 14.08.2008 she found rust and dirt on the washed clothes and immediately contacted the opposite party and in turn, one Mr. Arunkumar was sent by the opposite party to attend the work. Then the opposite party told the complainant that the machine is in good working condition and it has need for acid wash only to clean rust and dirt and to that effect the complainant has paid Rs.2200/-, the receipt for the same as marked as Ex.A1. Further, it is learnt that the opposite party took the washing machine for acid wash, but even after lapse of 1 1/2months the machine has not been returned and after several phone calls the said washing machine was returned. When the complainant got the machine she was shocked to see that excepting outer part of the washing machine the entire part have been replaced and moreover the machine was not in working condition which is due to the poor service of the opposite party only. Then the complainant written registered letter Ex.A4 and the legal notice was sent (Ex.A5) to the opposite party and the same were received by the opposite party. The acknowledgment card for receipt of the Ex.A5 is marked as Ex.A6. It is further stated that due to hand wash, the health of the complainant was affected and suffered Lumbar Disc Prolopse who was admitted in the Billroth Hospital. Though the Ex.A5 legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party but the opposite party did not come forward to rectify the defects. Therefore the complainant was constrained to file this complaint.
7. At the outset, on seeing the proof affidavit of the opposite party, it is contended that the allegation made in the complainant are all false and frivolous and in fact as per the willing of the complainant only plastic drum was fixed and due to the electricity power cut, it could not be tested and thereafter the service man attached to the opposite party came to the house of the complainant, she want only not allowed the service man to make repair in the hand washing machine. It is further stated by the opposite party that in order to get sympathy the complainant has falsely stated that she was suffered of back pain due to hand wash. The real fact is that even the service man came to the complainant’s house in person for several times, this complaint only not permitted to rectify the defects not as alleged by the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency in service and the opposite party is always ready to rectify the defects.
8. At this juncture , on perusal of the rival submission, putforth on either sides it is crystal clear that the defects in the washing machine which belongs to the complainant occurred and immediately contacted the opposite party to rectify the same are all not disputed. It is an admitted fact. Similarly the amount paid though ExA1 is also not disputed. Furthermore, it is clearly stated that the washing machine is four years old. So, it is quite natural, some defects would occur. Such being the fact, it is stated by the service man of the opposite party that as per the willing of the complaint, the plastic drum was fixed and due to electricity power failure, it could not be tested immediately and thereafter he came to the house of the complainant, she had purposely not allowed him to attend the repair. Furthermore, it is learnt that the opposite party is always ready to rectify the defects. In such circumstances it is pertinent to notice that the washing machine was purchased in the year 2009 and hence it cannot be replaced with new machine. Therefore, the only remedy is to direct the opposite party to rectify the defects. In the meanwhile, it is stated by the complainant that even several phone calls made to the opposite party, they did not respond. But there is no proof to that effect except the Ex.A3 while being so it is narrated by the opposite party that service man was purposely not allowed to make repair.
9. In the lights of the above facts and circumstances this forum holds that there is some deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party since the opposite party did not respond to Ex.A3 and Ex.A5. But at the same time other facts on the side of the complainant have not been proved though relevant evidence. So, it is fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to rectify the defects. Thus the point No. 1 is answered accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1, the complainant is entitled to get some reasonable compensation and for refund of the amount of Rs.2,200/- if the opposite party failed to rectify the defects. Thus point no.2 is answered accordingly.
In the Result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to rectify the defects or repair in the Washing Machine fully within a week from date of the receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party has to refund the charges of Rs.2,200/- ( Rupees Two thousand two hundred only) already paid by the complainant. In addition to that, the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency of service and a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) Total Rs.15,200/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred only)
The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
Dictated directly by the president to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 10th July – 2015.
Sd/-*** Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of Complainant Documents:
Ex.A1 Dt.14.04.2008 - Xerox Copy of Cash Bill for the Purchase of
Washing Machine
Ex.A2 Dt. 07.09.2012 - Xerox Copy of Receipt issued by the Opposite Party
to the complainant
Ex.A3 Dt.10.09.2012 - Xerox Copy of Receipt issued by the Opposite party
Ex.A4 Dt. 29.10.2012 - Xerox Copy of Registered letter sent by the
Complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A5 Dt. 28.11.2012 - Legal Notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the
opposite party
Ex.A6 Dt. 06.12.2012 - Xerox Copy of Acknowledgement Card
List of Opposite Party Documents:
Ex.B1 Dt. 11.10.2012 - Xerox copy of Call Details
Sd/-*** Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
