COMPLAINT FILED: 31.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 07th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.2864/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri.Lalmon C. Kurian,Villa No.149,Himagiri Meadows,Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 083.V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. The Manager,IFB Industrices Ltd.,Verna Industries,# L1, Verna,Goa – 403 722.2. The Manager,IFB Industries Ltd.,16/17, Vishveswaryiah Industrial Estate,Mahadevapura Post,Bangalore – 48.Advocate – Sri.Vinod Kumar B.N
O R D E R
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 pay a compensation of Rs.90,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased a Digital Washing Machine from OP in the month of May 2007 for a total cost of Rs.24,000/-.
It had a warranty but within six months from the date of purchase complainant experienced certain problems with the said washing machine. Though he made repeated requests and demands to OP the said problems, defects are not detected and cured to his satisfaction. Now the said machine has become useless. He was made to move from pillar to post to redress his grievance thereby he suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to get defect free washing machine he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.
2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant was not handling the washing machine as per user’s manual and instructions given therein. He used to overload the machine due to which the motor was damaged. On the receipt of the complaint from OP, OP.2 deputed the technical person to examine the said washing machine and they are prepared to repair it to the satisfaction of the complainant even by replacing some spare parts because the said defects noticed in warranty period. But complainant was not available at the residence, as he has left to abroad. No fault lies with the OP. There is a delay in repairing the said washing machine because of the non availability of the complainant and due to his non co-operation. OP is still ready to repair washing machine including the replacement of the spare parts if so required. The other allegations of the complainant are all baseless. OP is neither obliged to replace the said washing machine nor pay the compensation. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No. 3 :- To what Order?
5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
Point No.1:- In Affirmative
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part
Point No.3:- As per final
R E A S O N S
6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one washing machine from OP in the month of May 2007 for a valid consideration of Rs.24,000/- having a warranty. It is also not at dispute that complainant experienced some problem with the said Washing Machine within 6 months from the date of purchase. He immediately contacted the OP. OP Engineer examined the said machine and confirmed the defect in the manufacture but thereafter also in spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP neither repaired the said washing machine nor replaced it. Under such circumstances complainant is put to both mental agony and financial loss that too for no fault of his.
7. As against this it is contended by the OP that there is some defect with the motor of the washing machine because of the over loading and not handling the said machine as per the user’s manual instructions. Of course OP did admit the fact of they having received the complaint from the complainant then deputed their technical Engineer who confirmed some defect with the said machine. According to OP they are prepared to detect the defect, cure the same and replace the spares if so required but complainant was not available at the residence when their Engineer went there. It is stated that complainant went abroad. Of course this fact is not denied by the complainant.
8. On the over all examination of the defence set out by the OP it is made clear that OP admits the defects with the said machine and they have also undertaken that they are ready to repair the said washing machine including replacement of spare parts if so required. We find the approach of the OP is fair and bonafide. When the said machine can be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant there is no point in asking for the replacement. The other claim of the complainant that he has suffered monetary loss as such he is entitled for Rs.90,000/- compensation equivalent to the salary appears to be highly imaginary.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as the OP has not attended to the said defects immediately naturally complainant suffered some inconvenience. Here we find the deficiency in service. As the OP has promised to detect the defect and cure the same complainant is not entitled for replacement of the said machine. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to rectify the said mistake and repair the said machine to the satisfaction of the complainant and replace some parts if so required free of cost and pay some litigation cost and token of compensation. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to repair the said washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the spares if so required within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and also pay a token of compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-.