Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/182/2013

Indukuri Daniel Raju @ Sudeera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirl Pool (I) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

D.N.S. Guptha

07 Feb 2015

ORDER

 Reg. of the Complaint:12-07-2013

                                                                                                                                 Date of Order:07-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

SATURDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.182/2013

 

BETWEEN:

INDUKURI DANIEL RAJU @ SUDEERA,

S/O I.V.RAJU, C/O MRS.SARASWATHI MAHANTHY,

HINDU, AGED 61 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.50-102-21/1,

OPPOSITE TO STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD,

NORTH EXTENTION, SEETHAMMADHARA,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

…COMPLAINANT

AND:

1. M/S WHIRLPOOL (I) LTD., REP., BY ITS

AUTHORIZED PERSON, WHIRLPOOL HOUSE,

PLOT NO.40, SECTOR-44, GURGON-122002.

2.SAI BALAJI ENTERPRISES, REP. BY ITS

AUTHORISED PERSON, D.NO.48-14-115,

NEW RESAPUVANIPALEM, BESIDE RELIANCE JEWELS,

SONEY CENTRE, UPSTAIRS, VISAKHAPATNAM-03.

…OPPOSITE PARTIES

This case coming on 19-01-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI D.N.S.GUPTA, Advocate for the Complainant, and of Sri.K.V.Uday Bhaskar, Advocate for the 1^st Opposite Party and 2^nd Opposite Party, being set exparte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

ORDER

 (As per SMT.K.SAROJA, Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Whirlpool Washing Machine from the 2^nd OP who is the Dealer by paying Rs.11,600/-  on 24-05-2012. The first OP is the Manufacturer of the said Washing Machine. While using the Washing Machine by placing the permissible load of cloths but the performance of the machine proved to be unsatisfied as the rate of rotation and  other mechanism would not be a fit to get the cloths washed as specified in the manual as demanded by the representative of the OP2.  Then, the complainant made a complaint and in turn the people of the 2^nd OP came to his house and made an attempt to demonstrate but they failed to prove its performance up to the expected standards as promised in the manual and in the said process, the 2^nd OP men visited two times to his house but failed to recondition the same. Then, the complainant issued a registered Lawyers Notice to the OPs dated 22-09-2012, but they failed to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    give reply.  Hence,  this complaint.

a)      To award damages to a sum of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency of services.

b)      For claim of the value of machine @ Rs.11,600/- in support of cash bill together with interest @ 18% p.a, from the date of purchase till the date of payment.

c)       For costs and other charges to a sum of Rs.5,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of purchase till the date of payment.

d)      Any other relief (s) which the Forum deems fit & proper under the circumstances of the case.

2.       The 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Forum as it was set exparte and remained exparte.

3.       The 1^st Opposite Party resisted the claim of the complainant by contending as can be seen from its counter, the 1^st OP stated that the complainant is using the said washing machine from the date of purchase till today without any interruption. They undertook to appoint quality service engineer to make a personal inspection of the washing machine of the complainant for knowing condition and also to know about the grievance of the complainant which are revealed the exact position of the washing machine. So, this claim is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

4.       At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed Evidence Affidavit as well as written arguments to support his contentions. Exhibits A1 to A4 are marked for the complainant. The 1^st OP filed its affidavit but failed to file written arguments. Exhibits B1 to B6 are marked on  behalf of the 1^st OP. Heard arguments.

          Exhibit A1 is Cash bill bearing No.139, dated 24-05-2012, Exhibit A2 is the Registered Lawyer’s Notice along with postal receipts, dated 22-09-2012, Exhibit A3 is the Acknowledgement by OP2 dated 29-09-2012, Exhibit A4 is the Registered Postal Receipt bearing no.5822. dated 24-09-2012.

Exhibit B1 is the copy of Call sheet, Exhibit B2 is the Schedule of washing machine, Exhibit B3 is the Appendix containing composition of various soiling solutions, Exhibit B4 is the Appendix Test Load Washing Machine, Exhibit B5 is the Test Load Washing Machine and the Exhibit B6 is the Test Load Washing Machine.

5.       The fact shown from Exhibits A2 reveals that the complainant issued a Registered Lawyers Notice to the OPs, requesting them to rectify defects in the said machine or replace the same within 7 days of receipt of this notice. Though, the notice served by the OPs but they failed to give any reply to the complainant.

6.       The point that would arise for determination is:

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs? if so, Whether the Complainant is entitled to the   reliefs asked for?

7.       After careful perusal of the case record, this forum finds that there is sheer negligence on the part of the OPs, as the complainant purchased the Washing Machine on 24-05-2012 and after 5 months, the machine gave troubles. The complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs on 22-09-2012. As per the instructions manual. he used the washing machine but even in the first wash, it proved to be unsatisfactory and the soap power do not rinse in the water. Though this legal notice is received by the OPs, they kept silent. As such, the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and physical strain. Though the 1^st OP stated in their counter that they undertook to appoint a qualified service engineer to make a personal inspection of the washing machine of the complainant for knowing present working condition of the washing machine. It reveals that the OPs did not take any action from the date of legal notice i.e., 22-09-20012 till filing of the counter i.e., 30-09-2013, it shows sheer negligence on the part of the OPs, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  However, this Forum has no jurisdiction to award damages and the complainant is directed to approach appropriate Court for damages. Hence, the complaint is entitled to Rs.11,600/- with interest, some compensation and costs too.

8.       In the result, the Complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Parties; to pay an amount of Rs.11,600/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand and Six Hundred only) with 9% p.a., from 22-09-2012 till the date of actual realization, a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant.  

Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 7^th day of February, 2015.

   Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                        Sd/-

M.MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT                                                L.MEMBER  

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	24-05-2012	Cash Bill No.139	Original
A-2	22-09-2012	Registered Lawyer’s Notice along with postal receipts	Office copy
A-3	29-09-2012	Acknowledgement by OP2	Original
A-4	24-09-2012	Registered Postal Receipt	Original

 

Exhibits Marked for the OPs:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B-1		Consumer Call sheet	Photocopy
B-2		Schedule of Washing Machine	Photocopy
B-3		Appendix containing composition of various soiling solutions	Photocopy
B-4		Appendix Test Load Washing Machine	Photocopy
B-5		Test Load Washing Machine	Photocopy
B-6		Test Load Washing Machine.	Photocopy

   Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                Sd/-

M.MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT                                                L.MEMBER