BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 24^th DAY OF MAY 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund him a sum of Rs.16,200/- being the cost of Washing Machine, Rs.4,779/- paid for additional warranty and litigation cost.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant purchased a front loading Washing Machine of Whirlpool make from VGP on 19.05.2008.  While switching on the machine by technician it started making loud noise and the technician set it right by making certain adjustment and the machine started working.  But after few weeks the same complaint repeated and again the technician did some adjustment and made it working.  Again, after few months the same problem started.  Therefore, the complainant approached VGP for replacing the machine.  The complainant was informed that the same model is not available in stock and two technicians came over to the house of the complainant and repaired the Washing Machine and made it functional.  Again, thereafter the machine failed and the technicians who came to repair stated that the machine is beyond repair.  Thereafter a new front loading machine was brought and delivered by Genius Service Point, vide their invoice No.13665 dated 25.02.2011.  This machine worked for about 6 months and thereafter stopped working.  On a complaint, the technician came and detected the fault in the circuit board and since new circuit board was not available immediately the complainant was made to wait for some more time and thereafter new circuit board was replaced and machine started working.  After few weeks, again the same problem cropped up.  After continuous follow-up with many people in Whirlpool, one Mr.Srikant Reddy was kind enough to arrange the electronic circuit board and the machine started working again.  The machine failed again on 26.07.2013 with same problem for which a complaint was lodged.  However, the concerned in the Whirlpool did not repair the machine and the machine was not at all repaired.

One Mr.Shakir told the complainant that, he could replace the machine with new one with a discount of 20% on the list price and he also told he could arrange refund of money paid for extended warranty.  The complainant did not accept the said proposal as he had come to know that there is some inherent defect in the front loading Washing Machine manufactured by Whirlpool.  It is apparent that, the Whirlpool is selling front load Washing Machine which suffers from inherent manufacturing defect thereby cheating the innocent customers like complainant.  The complainant preferred the Whirlpool Washing Machine because of his past experience with the Washing Machine of the same company used while he was staying at Dubai.  However, the front load Washing Machine manufactured and marketed in India by the Whirlpool suffers from serious inherent defect putting several innocent customers to great hardship and inconvenience.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for refund of the money paid by him to purchase the Washing Machine amounting to Rs.16,200/- and Rs.4,779/- paid for additional warranty and litigation cost, etc.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP-1 appeared through their advocate however failed to file their version and contest the complaint.  OPs.2 & 3 despite service of notice, failed to appear and contest the complaint.

4. During pendency of proceedings the learned advocate for OP-1 filed a memo put forthing certain terms for amicable settlement.  As could be seen from the material placed on record no settlement could be arrived between the parties.  Since OP-1 failed to file his version despite sufficient time and opportunity given.  The complainant was called upon to submit his evidence by way of affidavit.  Accordingly, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence.  Complainant also submitted his written arguments.

5. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, sworn testimony of the complainant, written arguments submitted by the complainant, various documents produced by the complainant and other materials placed on record.

6. The complainant in his sworn testimony reiterated the allegations made in the complaint.  The complainant to substantiate that he purchased a Washing Machine for a sum of Rs.16,200/- from VGP on 19.05.2008 has produced the copy of the tax invoice.  He has also produced the application form-cum-receipt No.80811 issued by OP-1.  The complainant to substantiate that he paid a sum of Rs.4,779/- for extended warranty period of two years has produced tax invoice dated 25.02.2011 issued by Genius Service Point.  As could be seen from the extended warranty the extended warranty is valid from 26.02.2014 to 26.02.2015.  As already stated above, OP-1 despite entering their appearance failed to contest the complaint by filing either their version or affidavit evidence.  Therefore, we don’t find any reasons to disbelieve the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint as well as in his affidavit evidence.

7. It is pertinent to note that, the Washing Machine bought by the complainant on 19.05.2008 did not function well at all since beginning.  Since the said Washing Machine started breaking down frequently the same has been replaced by OP-1 through their authorized dealer Genius Service Point vide their invoice No.13665 dated 25.02.2011.  The Washing Machine which was replaced suffered with certain inherent manufacturing defect as a result frequently stopped functioning due to failure of electronic circuit board, thereby putting the complainant to great hardship and inconvenience.  Even after replacement of the earlier Washing Machine, the complainant could not enjoy or make use of the new Washing Machine delivered on 25.02.2011.  Admittedly the said Washing Machine had a warranty of two years from 25.02.2011.  OP-3 Genius Service Point having collected a sum of Rs.4,779/- issued additional warranty for two more years starting from 26.02.2014.  However, the Washing Machine has stopped functioning with effect from 26.07.2013 within the warranty period of two years.  The OPs could not set right or rectify the defect appearing in the machine and also did not either replace the same with new one, in terms of the warranty or refund the cost of the Washing Machine.  The OP-1 for the reasons best known to them did not deny any of the serious allegations made against them by the complainant regarding the faulty designing of the front loading Washing Machine.  Therefore, we can safely draw a inference that OP-1 despite knowing that their front loading Washing Machine suffers from certain inherent manufacturing defect marketed the same and thereby cheated innocent purchasers such as the complainant.  The complainant was lured to purchase the front loading Washing Machine manufactured by OP-1 because of his good experience with a similar machine during his stay at Dubai.  

8. Admittedly the complainant is a senior citizen aged more than 76 years and by selling a defective Washing Machine the OPs have put the complainant to great hardship and inconvenience.  It could seen from the material placed on record, the OPs have made the complainant to run from post to pillar to get the Washing Machine repaired.  The OPs have made the complainant to undergo severe mental agony by selling him a Washing Machine with known manufacturing defect.  The OPs knowing fully well the machine sold to complainant even would not function during its warranty period have made him to shell out a sum of Rs.4,779/- for extended warranty period of two more years.

9. Thus, looking to the conduct of OPs, we are of the considered opinion that, the OP-1 has to be directed to refund a sum of Rs.16,200/- towards cost of the Washing Machine together with sum of Rs.4,779/- paid for additional warranty apart from litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.  It is also pertinent to note that though OP-1 submitted a proposal for amicable settlement however it did not seriously make effort for any settlement and thereby delayed the disposal of the case.  This conduct of OP-1 has put a senior citizen to great hardship and inconvenience.  Therefore, we feel it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  

10.  The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint is allowed.  OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,200/- being the cost of the Washing Machine and Rs.4,779/- being money paid for extended warranty, within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the order, failing which they shall pay the said amount together with interest @ 12% p.a till the date of realization.

Further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency of service on their part together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 24^th day of May 2016)

MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 06.02.2014.

1. Sri.T.V Bhaskaran

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties - Nil

Documents produced by OPs – Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*