COMPLAINT FILED: 26.09.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 26th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2102/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT D.N. Venkata Krishna,<br /> 461-B, 15th Cross, <br /> 18th Main, I H Layout,<br /> Rajarajaeshwarinagar,<br /> Bangalore – 98.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Whirlpool Home Care Cell,<br /> Whirlpool of India Ltd.,<br /> Consumer Services,<br /> Head Office, 28, NIT,<br /> Faridabad – 121 001.<br /> <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 seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective washing machine or refund the cost of the same 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 being a senior citizen thought of purchasing a Whirlpool washing machine from OP on 28.06.2004. In that regard he has invested his hard earned money. But unfortunately from day one he experienced one or the other problems with the said washing machine, several spare parts were replaced during the warranty period, but still it is not functioning to the expectation. Several times the technicians of the OP examined the said defective washing machine, though repaired it, but they are unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Complainant is unable to use the said washing machine. It is all because of the inherent defect in the manufacture of the same. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to replace the same with a brand new defect free, went in futile. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 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. Though the OP is duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the Whirlpool fully automatic washing machine from OP on 28.06.2004, which carried the warranty period up to 28th June 2009. From day one he noticed one or the other problems with the said washing machine. Every now and then he was forced to approach the OP for the repairs. During the course of the repairs several spare parts were changed. For no fault of his, he was made to pay the cost of the said spare parts and the service charges, that too when the defect occurred within the warranty period. The tax invoice and the job sheets are produced. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the above said undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony.<br /> <br /> 5. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase the said washing machine, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of its inherent manufacturing defect within the warranty period. Naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Though OP technicians attended to the said defects and repaired the washing machine, but they are unable to detect the actual defect and cure the same. The non-appearance of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits the allegations made by the complainant. When that is so, we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though OP received the lumpsum cost of the said washing machine, but failed to provide defect free product, thereby accrued the wrongful gain to itself and caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstances the complainant deserves the relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to replace the Whirlpool fully automatic washing machine sold to the complainant on 28.06.2004 with a brand new defect free washing machine of the same model for the same cost and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- and take back the defective washing machine. 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 26th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />