O R D E R

By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :

          The brief Facts of the Case as follows:

          Being fascinated by the advertisements and publicity of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant purchased a Washing Machine manufactured by 1^st opposite party company Whirlpool of India Ltd. (Model No.Stainwash Deep clean 65G) from the 2^nd opposite party, the retailer at Irinjalakkuda on 13/10/15 as per Invoice No.IJK 7935 for an amount of Rs.19,300/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand three hundred only). The technicians of the opposite parties installed the washing machine at the premises of the complainant, making him believe that the washing machine is of good quality and would work without any defect. The opposite parties had issued warranty card for rectifying any defect. Two year replacement warranty assured for major defects. There was 8 years extended warranty on motor and prime mover also.  The facts being so, contrary to the assurances given by the opposite parties, the washing machine worked only for one month and since then it ceased to work. The matter was timely informed to the 2^nd opposite party and requested to rectify the defects. Unfortunately there was no proper attention given by the 2^nd opposite party in time. So the complainant contacted the customer care office (NO.18002081800) over phone. The technician from the service centre of the 1^st opposite party visited the premises and tried to rectify the defect. The technician informed the complainant that the washing machine suffers some manufacturing defects and it is not repairable and also recommended replacement of the washing machine. So the complainant registered a complaint on 12/12/2015 (Reg. No.CO 1215004887) in the customer care service centre. Then the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that they will replace the defective washing machine within 45 days. But they failed to replace the washing machine even after 45 days. Subsequently the complainant was informed by the customer care centre that, the same model washing machine was not available in their stock and they were ready to repay the full amount within 15 days without any further delay. But even after repeated enquiries made by the complainant neither any reply was sent nor the money was repaid within the said period. Even though there is warranty for the washing machine, the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are keeping culpable silence to the request of the complainant.  Finally the complainant caused lawyer notice on 05/04/16 to the opposite parties requesting to reimburse the price of the washing machine and compensation but the 1^st opposite party replied admitting the case of the complainant and had stated that they are ready to settle the matter, for which the complainant is directed to contact the Manager M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd., South Kalamassery. The 2^nd opposite party also sent a reply notice stating that, they are only dealer of the washing machine manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party only is liable as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. As per the reply notice sent by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant contacted the Manager M/s Whirlpool India Ltd., South Kalamassery over phone but there was no proper remedy. All the attempts of the complainant become futile. The complainant sustained huge loss, mental agony and hardship. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

          2) Admitted the complaint. Proper notice issued to the opposite parties. After receiving the notice the opposite parties filed vakalath separately. But 1^st opposite party did not file version and declared ex-parte on 09/11/16. The 2^nd opposite party filed version admitting purchase of the washing machine. The case of the 2^nd opposite party is that when they have received the complaint it was duly intimated to the 1^st opposite party in time. The 1^st opposite party alone is liable to redress the grievance of the complainant as they are the manufacturer of the product. 2^nd opposite party is only a dealer and with regard to any manufacturing defect to the machine that has to be cleared by the 1^st opposite party and they are bound to comply with the conditions of warranty.   

          3) Points for consideration are :

                   a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

                       opposite parties or not ?

                   b) Reliefs and costs ?

          4) When the case came for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit. He affirmed and explained all the averments in the complaint. The documents produced by him were marked as Exts. P1 to P9. Ext. P1 is the Invoice dtd.13/10/2015  issued by the 2^nd opposite party  to the complainant; Ext. P2 is the User manual of the washing machine; Ext. P3 is the copy of Lawyer Notice dtd.05/04/16 issued by the complainant; Ext. P4 series (2 Nos.) are the Postal A/D cards; Ext. P5 is the copy of reply notice dtd.15/05/16 issued by the 1^st opposite party; Ext. P6 is the postal cover returned with the intimation ‘door locked’; Ext. P7 is the copy of Reply Notice dtd.15/05/16 send directly to the complainant; Ext. P8 is the Postal Cover and Ext. P9 is the Reply Notice dtd.16/04/16. From the side of opposite parties no documents were marked. Even though the 1^st opposite party declared ex-parte in this case the counsel of the 1^st opposite party filed a detailed argument note in this case as they are holding Vakkalath. The complainant & 2^nd opposite party also filed argument notes. The Commission had very carefully examined the facts and evidence of the case and arguments put forward by the complainant and the opposite parties.

          5) It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the washing machine from 2^nd opposite party manufactured by 1^st opposite party. From Ext. P5, P7 and P9 it is evident that there was manufacturing defect for the machine. Moreover in the reply notice send by the 1^st opposite party (Ext. P5 & P7 One to the counsel of the complainant and another directly to the complainant respectively) states that “while above are the facts, we would like to inform you that we are ready to settle the matter for which you may direct your client to contact the Manager, M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd., South Kalamassery, Ph No.80890 01560”. The case of the complainant is that as directed by the above said reply notices sent by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant contacted the Manager, M/s Whirlpool India Ltd., South Kalamassery over phone, but there was no proper reply and preferred this complaint. The counsel of the 1^st opposite party in his argument note also stated that since there was a shortage of the particular model machine, the opposite party offered the complainant to refund the price of the washing machine. When the opposite party contacted the complainant to handover the demand draft, he refused the same stating that he already approached this Hon’ble Commission and let’s wait for its verdict. The 1^st opposite party thoroughly failed to prove that they have acted upon their reply notice. Nothing more to be deliberated as they have admitted the contentions of the complainant. 2^nd opposite party also cannot absolve from the liability. Usually a customer have direct access with the dealer only. The dealer must have the bounden duty to make sure that the grievances of every customers redressed even manufacturing defects in the products sold by them. In this case the machine went defective within one month from the date of purchase. There was no effective interference from the part of 2^nd opposite party. On that aspect in this case the dealer also failed to fulfil their responsibility. Poor customers are dragged to various platforms for availing remedies for the defects of the products purchased by them. Therefore, we are in the opinion that the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony, hardship and loss to the complainant. Hence we are inclined to give a right verdict in favour of the complainant.

          In the result, complaint is allowed and 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.19,300/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand three hundred only) with 9% interest from the date of complaint.

2. 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as costs and compensation to the complainant. 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards cost and compensation to the complainant.

The order shall be complied within one month of receipt of copy of this order. If failed the complainant deserve 9% interest p.a. for entire amount till the date of realisation.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30^th day of April 2022.

    Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                    Sd/-               

Sreeja S.                                   Ram Mohan R                         C. T. Sabu

Member                                           Member                                               President

                                                    Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 Invoice dtd.13/10/2015  issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Ext. P2 User manual of the washing machine

Ext. P3 copy of Lawyer Notice dtd.05/04/16 issued by the complainant

Ext. P4 series (2 Nos.) Postal A/D cards

Ext. P5 copy of reply notice dtd.15/05/16 issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ext. P6 postal cover returned with the intimation ‘door locked’

Ext. P7 copy of Reply Notice dtd.15/05/16 send directly to the complainant

Ext. P8 Postal Cover

Ext. P9 Reply Notice dtd.16/04/16.            

                                                                                                    Id/-                                                                                                                  President