IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of June 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 49/2019 (Filed on 10.04.2019)
Complainants : 1. M.R.Biju, Moorkkattil House
Peruva P.O, Kottayam Dist-686610
2. M.K.Leela, Moorkkattil House
Peruva P.O, Kottayam Dist- 686610
(By Adv.K.A.Bijoy)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1. Whirlpool of India Ltd, India
Pin-121001. Represented by
Its Manager.
2. SSSK Enterprises, C/o Whirlpool
of India Ltd, Authorised INCS
Dealer, Naval Base, Kochi
Represented by its Proprietor
3. Whirlpool Service Centre
Govt. Hospital Junction
Thalayolaparambu P.O
(By Adv.K.S.Arundas & Adv.Manju J Varappally)
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
The Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The case of the 1st complainant is that the complainant had purchased one washing machine from the opposite party through the 2nd complainant which showed only a poor performance giving unsatisfactory result such as unclean clothes, remnants of washing powder on the clothes, slow washing etc. Upon making a complaint, the opposite party sent a service personnel, but he only explained the working of the machine. On repeated complaints, the 3rd opposite party inspected the machine and found that the belt and capacitor of the machine were defective and the same were replaced. Thereafter also the machine was not working properly. But the opposite parties did not responded to the repeated complaints of the complainant and hence this complaint is filed for replacement of the said machine with a new one or refund of the price of the machine along with compensation and cost.
Upon notice opposite parties 1 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed version. The 2nd opposite party though received the notice, did not care to appear before the commission or file version and hence set exparte.
The opposite parties 1 and 3, who are the manufacture and the service centre, contend that it is admitted that the machine of the complainant showed some defects and the same was cured by the service personnel as and when the complaint was received. The opposite parties raise the contention that the complainant was not their consumer as the machine was purchased by the complainant for some other person and hence the complaint is not maintainable. On 3.02.2018 one Binoy contacted the opposite party and informed the complaint of the machine which was recorded as complaint no CO 0218001466 and the technician of the opposite party inspected the machine and found that the capacitor of the washing machine became defective due to over loading/misuse/abusive use. Since the machine was under warranty, the defective capacitor was replaced free of cost. After two days again a complaint was registered and the service person again visited and found that the machine was not used properly and the service person explained the proper usage to Binoy. Though the complainant alleges manufacturing defects, no evidence has been produced to prove the same. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exhibit A1 and the expert commission report as C1. The opposite party 1 and 3 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and document Exhibit B1 was marked. A1 is only the purchase bill of the washing machine in the name of the 1st complainant issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Points
The 2nd complainant has stated in her affidavit that the washing machine was purchased by the 1st complainant, who is her near relative and an ex service man. So the 1st complainant is the consumer and the 2nd complainant is the beneficiary who is using the product with the consent of the 1st complainant. Hence the 2nd complainant comes in the shoe of the consumer.
The further contention of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties is that they had given proper and timely service to the complainant but the complainants were not using the machine properly. The wrong use of the machine was the reason for the defect of the machine.
But C1 is the report of the expert commissioner appointed by this Commission. In his report he has stated that though the washing machine was working, the quality of washing was not satisfactory. There was complaint in the inlet water pumping causing low water flow. So the time taken for the washing is 3times of the normal washing period. The bearing of the machine was defective with massive sound while spinning. Moreover, there was remnants of washing powder on the washed clothes even after drying.
The opposite party has not objected the C1 report as such. The only objection raised is the commissioner visited only after 3 years and he has not reported any manufacturing defect.
On a detailed examination of the pleadings and evidence on record, we find that even the opposite parties admit that the washing machine repeatedly showed complaints and once they replaced the capacitor and the belt free of cost. Exhibit B1 dated 03.02.18 is the job sheet in which the complaint is shown as machine not working. The opposite parties admit that the complainant had again registered a complaint after two days in the version. Though the opposite parties contend that the service personnel visited the complainant and taught the husband of the complainant about the proper working of the machine, the job card dated 5.2.18 which not marked but produced by the opposite parties, show that on that day also a complaint was registered as machine not working. So from all these we infer that the machine was not working properly at any point of time after the purchase till date.
Having considered the various submissions made on behalf of respective parties, what emerges is the question as to whether the manufacturing company and by extension the dealer/agent can be put to any compulsion to replace the washing machine itself when the bearing of the machine from which big noise was allegedly emanating had been replaced. It has been explained by X1 that the inlet water pumping and bearing was defective that no manufacturing defect has been proved in the machine as complained of by the purchaser. (Ref. C.N.Anantharam Vs. Ms Fiat India Pvt Ltd. and others).
As per the X1 report, the expert commissioner has not reported any manufacturing defect. But it is evident that the machine is defective. So the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect and compensate the mental agony and hardships the complainant had to face.
Hence we allow the complaint vide following order:-
- The 1st and 3rd opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant in the presence of the expert who submitted X1 report and ensure the proper working of the machine.
- The opposite party 1 and 3 are directed to give Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings suffered by the complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the award amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of the filing of the complaint.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of June, 2023.
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of the complainants
A1- Grocery bill dated 11.04.2017
Exhibits marked from the side of the opposite parties
B1- Copy of the Job sheet dated 03.02.2018
Commission Report
C1- Expert Commission Report
By Order
Assistant Registrar
