COMPLAINT FILED: 28.05.2008<br /> <br /> 21st AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1195/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Rajendra B. Sankanatti,R/at II Floor, # 3/16, 6th Cross, 3rd Main,Venkatapura,Koramangala,Bangalore – 560 034.Advocate (Raveendra B. Sankanatti)V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Unilet Appliance Pvt. Ltd.,No. 17, 100 Feet Road,B T M Layout, 2nd Stage,Next to Food World,Bangalore – 560 076.2. The Company Secretary,I F B Industries Ltd.,Plot No. IND-5, Sector – 1,East Calcutta TownshipCalcutta – 700 078.West Bengal State.Advocate for OP.2 (Vinod Kumar)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective washing machine with a brand new and pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant purchased one 6kgs IFB washing machine manufactured by OP.2 through OP.1 its dealer for a valid consideration on 16.06.2006. The said machine carried warranty for two years. But after lapse of one year that is in the month of June 2007 complainant observed defect in the said machine, speed of the drum was not varying as per the setting of the spin speed selector knob. He immediately lodged complaint to OP.2. The technician of OP.2 examined the washing machine and stated that there is a defect in the motor. Due to which drum was not spinning as per the setting. It is further brought to the notice of the complainant that the wiring is not properly done. A temporary repair was done, but still there was no improvement in the function of the said machine. It was producing unbearable noise and diminished the washing quality. Again complainant made complaints to the OP’s, there was no proper response. On insistence OP’s came forward to say that they have to replace the motor. Though the said defect occurred within the warranty period, OP’s failed to attend to the said defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. Complainant invested his hard earned money, but he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the inherent defect in the said machine. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant issued the legal notice on 22.02.2008. Again there was no response. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP’s. OP.1 though served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP.1 is placed ex-parte. OP.2 on appearance filed the version mainly contending that complainant failed to follow the user manual instructions. There is a frequent overloading which has resulted in some defect with drum and its movement, wiring and other things are all perfect. Complainant has used the said spin speed selector knob in anti clockwise direction, it has resulted in the drum running to a maximum speed. Though OP.2 technicians intended to repair the said defect, complainant did not permit to do so. He insisted for the replacement which is not provided under the warranty. OP.2 is ready and willing to repair the washing machine free of cost including replacement of the spare parts if they are permitted. No default lies with them. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. There is no proof of inherent manufacturing defect with the said machine. The warranty issued by OP.2, covers all the parts of the washing machine which proves to be defective will be replaced or repaired free of charge. Under the circumstances even till today OP.2 is ready to comply the said warranty conditions. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.2 has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.1 did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one IFB washing machine manufactured by OP.2 IFB Company through the dealer OP.1 for a valid consideration of Rs.21,000/- and odd. The tax invoice is produced. According to the complainant the said machine carried two years warranty. On going through the complaint averments, complainant used the said machine without any defect right up to the month of June 2007 that is nearly for one year. In June 2007 he noticed the speed of the drum was not varying as per the setting of the spin speed selector knob and the washing is not as per expectation. Hence he made immediate complaint to the OP. OP.2 technicians examined the same and confirmed the defect then cured it to little extent, but thereafter also the said machine used to produce an unbearable noise and diminished the quality of washing. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by OP.2 that warranty issued by them covers all the parts of washing machine which proves to be defective would be replaced or repaired free of charges on the receipt of the intimation. The version and the evidence filed by the OP.2 further goes to show that they are ready and willing to repair the washing machine free of cost including replacement of the spare parts if they are permitted by the complainant. It is the grievance of the OP.2 that complainant did not permit them to repair the said machine, but he insisted for the replacement of the said drum. Under the circumstances we find the approach of the complainant is not fair. When he has used the said machine for more than a year without there being any mechanical defect, now suddenly he cannot allege that there is an inherent manufacturing defect either with the wiring or with a drum movement.<br /> <br /> 8. When OP.2 inspected the said machine they observed that the spin speed selector knob in anti clockwise direction which has resulted the drum running at a maximum speed. This fact is not otherwise denied by the complainant. It is further contended by OP.2 that due to the overloading in the washing machine some problem aroused. This circumstance cannot be ruled out. In addition to that complainant has not filed any expert evidence in the field to show that there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the said washing machine. In absence of such expert’s evidence, in our view the complainant do not deserves the relief of replacement of the said machine in its entirety.<br /> <br /> 9. As already observed by us, the warranty and undertaking given by the OP.2 that they are going to repair the washing machine free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant including that of replacement of the spare parts free and also service will be free will meet the ends of justice. Of course complainant invested his hard earned money, but unable to reap the fruits of his investment after one year. OP’s having not attended to the said defects immediately must have caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.2. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, complainant deserves certain relief as observed by us in the body of this order. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP.2 is directed to repair the defective washing machine free of cost including that of replacement of the spare parts if need be free of cost and make it fit for use. The said repairs is to be made to the satisfaction of the complainant. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />