IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 216/2020 (filed on 29-12-2020)
Petitioner : M.S Vijayan,
Nellithanathu House,
Aruvithura P.O.
Kondoor, Meenachil Taluk,
Kottayam.
(Adv. K.R. Muraleedharan)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Whirlpool India Ltd.
Plot No.A-4, MIDC,
Ranjangaon, Shirur Taluk,
Pune Dist. Maharashtra – 41220.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2) Home Devices Pvt. Ltd.
Electronics and Home Appliances,
11/435 B, Udyamputhoor Arcade,
Kumaranalloor P.O. Kottayam,
Pin – 686016.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The complainant’s case is that he purchased washing machine manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party by paying Rs.13,500/- on 14-09-2019. At the time of purchase, the opposite parties assured that the said washing machine had one year replacement warranty. As the 2nd opposite party was not ready to deliver or installed the washing machine at the house of the complainant, the complainant had to transport the same and fit it in his house with the assistance of the opposite parties. The said washing machine was defective and was not working. The complainant informed the matter to the 2nd opposite party but for 2 days they did not attend the complaint. Later when the complainant again contacted he was given another number who also assured to sent a Technician within 2 days. But after 2 days when the complainant contacted them, they gave another number said to be a service technician and he also assured that he would be coming within 2 days. But nobody turned up. After a few days when the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party with the help of a local leader, the 2nd opposite party replaced the washing machine with another one. Then also the opposite parties have not provided any assistance for the transportation or the installation. The replaced washing machine has worked for 5 months without any problem. But on 05-03-2020 the washing machine became defunct. Thereafter even though the complainant contacted the opposite parties several times no service was given by the opposite parties. The complainant alleges that the said washing machine has manufacturing defect. Thus the complainant sent a lawyers notice on 23-03-2020. But no replay was given by the opposite parties. So this complaint is filed for realization of money and compensation for the loss caused due to deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.
Notice was served upon the opposite parties, though the opposite parties appeared, they did not care to file their version or proceed with the case. So the opposite parties 1 and 2 were set exparte.
The complainant has adduced evidence through proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A5. On a detailed perusal of evidence on record and pleadings, we would like to frame the following issues.
- Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant has proved the manufacturing defect?
- If so, what are the reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.1 and 2
The complainant is aggrieved by the lack of service in the proper installation of the washing machine purchased by him from the opposite parties and by the supply of defective washing machine. The complainant has produced Ext.A1 invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party which proves the transaction. Ext.A3 is the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties did not reply to the same. From the documents, we understand that the washing machine purchased became defective within the warranty period and there is no evidence contrary to it. No document has been produced by the complainant to prove the warranty conditions. As the opposite parties did not challenge the allegations, we presume that the washing machine purchased as per Ext.A1 inevitably having one year warranty period. As per the complaint, the 1st washing machine was defective and after several request and demands he had managed to get it replaced with a new one, but the replaced one also became defective after the use of 5 months. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the allegations of the complainant we are inclined to find that the opposite parties have committed gross negligence and deficiency in the service to be rendered to their consumer.
Though the complainant alleges manufacturing defect to the washing machine, he has not taken steps to inspect the same by an expert and get the report filed before the Commission. To prove manufacturing defect alleged, though an expert report is effective as there is no contrary contention or evidence it can be found that the stopping of washing machine has happened due to some defects.
Point No.3
The 2nd opposite party being a dealer of the 1st opposite party is legally bound to ensure the quality of the product they sells. Further they are legally bound to give proper service to their customers including delivery and installation of the product especially when it is electric or electronic goods. For the installation of the electrical goods like washing machine, some kind of expertise is needed which the layman may not possess, so the dealer is expected to serve the consumer upto his full satisfaction. Here the 2nd opposite party has deviated from his obligations to serve its customers.
Hence we arrive at the findings that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by supplying defective washing machine and denying proper service to the complainant and allow the complaint.
ORDER
- The opposite parties are directed to rectify the refrigerator at free of cost within 15 days from the receipt of Order, failing which return the amount of Rs.13,500/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand and five hundred) to the complainant.
- The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards the compensation for mental agony and hardship jointly and severally
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22nd day of December, 2021.
-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of bill dtd.14-09-2019 issued by 2nd opposite party
A2 – Ready reference guide issued by 1st opposite party
A3- Copy of lawyers notice dtd.23-03-2020 issued to opposite parties
A4 – Postal receipt
A5 - Postal acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
