BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 08/12/2011

Date of Order : 30/06/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 679/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant purchased a washing machine at a price of Rs. 14,750/- from the 3^rd opposite party on 09-09-2007. The said machine was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant joined the Whirlpool Home Care Plan on 07-10-2009 by remitting Rs. 2,259/- with the 2^nd opposite party. On 05-04-2010, the machine became defunct. A complaint was registered with the 1^st opposite party. Since there was no response again on 09-04-2010, the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party to which there was no response. Later, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party has not taken any action in the matter. On 26-04-2010, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties demanding to rectify the defects. They received the notice, but there was no response. So, the complainant was compelled to purchase another washing machine. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the washing machine together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :

The machine in question was sold by the 3^rd opposite party on 09-09-2007 with 2 years warranty. Two years warranty has been provided by the manufacturer. The alleged complaint to the machine was first noticed only on 05-04-2010, it is beyond the period of warranty. Since, the spare of the complainant's machine was not available, the opposite parties expressed their willingness to provide a new machine of her choice to the complainant on paying 30% of its actual price. But the complainant was not amenable and preferred this complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the washing machine from the opposite parties?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly on 09-09-2007, the complainant purchased the washing machine from the 3^rd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party at a price of Rs. 14,750/- evidenced by Ext. A1 retail invoice. Ext. A2 application form-cum-receipt goes to show that the complainant joined Whirlpool Home Care Pan by remitting Rs. 2,259/- and thus the opposite parties extended the warranty from 10-10-2009 to 09-10-2010. During this period, the machine became defunct and the opposite parties failed to rectify the same. According to the opposite parties, since the spare parts are not available they offered replacement of the machine provided the complainant pays 30% of the price. But there is nothing on record to substantiate their contentions as observed above. By the time, the complainant had to purchase another new machine evidenced by Ext. A5 tax invoice. Nothing is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to their failure to address the complainant or redress his grievance. Since, the machine went out of order within the warranty period, the opposite parties were legally liable to replace the machine or to refund its price. Evidently, they failed in that on both accounts. So inevitably, the complainant had to purchase another washing machine, to solve his predicament so replacement of new machine is no remedy. Since he had no way out from the predicament, he was put into. According to the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a frustrated consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget (Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal (IV (2007) CPJ 294 (NC) ). The consumer has had to suffer basic inconveniences and mental agony and probably monitory loss on account of that. At present, together to meet the ends of justice and maintain rule of law, we are of the firm view that here compensation and costs are called for. We decide as follows :

6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that,

1. the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the price as per Ext. A1 to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till realisation.

2. the opposite parties shall also pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant which includes the costs of the proceedings.

3. the complainant shall return the defective washing machine to the 1^st opposite parties which shall be collected at their cost.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of June 2012

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========