V. Kamalakanna,
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

The Officer Incharge, Consumer Service Dept.

M/s. Girias Investment Pvt., Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)V. Kamalakannan, S/o M. Venkataraman, R/at No.7, III Main Road, Palace Guttahalli, Bangalore-03. Complainant

V/S


1. The Officer Incharge, Consumer Service Department, Whirl Pool of India Ltd., Corporate Office at B/1/A12, I Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044. 2. M/s Girias Investment (P) Ltd., No.1/1, Bellary Road, Cauvery Theatre Circle, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-80. Opposite Parties

ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale

This is a complainant filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has purchased Whirl Pool Washing Machine from opposite party No.2 on 02/03/2007 and the same was delivered at his residence on 03/03/2007. The washing machine was purchased by cash payment of Rs.11,550/-. The local dealer issued warrantee for two years. Complainant submits that he expected that machine would be in order and serve his family satisfactorily without any defect. In the month of March-2008 some cracks were noticed on the body of the outer portion and cracks gradually increasing. Complainant informed to the local dealer on 17/03/2008 and sent a person to inspect the machine at complainant's residence. The dealer promised to do the needful to rectify the defect, but nothing has been done. Complainant again approached the dealer. Some other person was deputed to inspect the washing machine. Since March-2008 complainant several times approached the local dealer no steps taken to replace the machine. Warrantee period has not been expired. Opposite party failed to do the needful in spite of repeated demands amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant had issued legal notice but opposite party never bothered to approach the Hon'ble Forum for efficacious remedy. The complainant prayed for replacement of the washing machine with a brand new in place of defective machine including litigation charges and damages. Hence, the complaint.


2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Notice to opposite party No.2 served. Notice to opposite party No.1 was awaiting. When the case was set for appearance of the opposite parties the opposite party No.2 remained absent. Nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and therefore, opposite party No.2 was placed as exparte. Even opposite party No.2 has not sent the defence version by post. Opposite party No.1 is a company and the same is not necessary party since the machine has been purchased from the local dealer and warrantee card had been issued by the opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 will represent the opposite party No.1 also. REASONS 3. Perused the complaint and documents. The complainant has produced tax invoice of opposite party No.2. As per this receipt washing machine has been purchased by the complainant for Rs.11,550/. The complainant has also produced service request. The complainant has produced warrantee also. As per this warrantee date of the purchase is 02/03/2007 and warrantee period is for two years. The complainant submitted that cracks were noticed on the body of the outer portion on both the sides and gradually cracks increasing. He complained to the local dealer vide reference No.4928 dated 17/03/2008 and the dealer deputed a person to inspect the machine but nothing has been done to rectify the defects. The complainant again approached the local dealer and the person deputed to inspect the machine had not done anything and he went away without telling anything. It is the case of the complainant that since March-2008 he approached opposite party No.2 several times and no steps have been taken to rectify the defect or replace the machine. Opposite parties failed to do the needful if despite repeated demands. The opposite party No.2 who is a dealer though served with notice by registered post has not cared to appear before this Forum to submit his defence. It appears that the opposite party No.2 has no defence to make that’s why he has remained absent. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the facts stated by the complainant. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. Consumer is the most important visitor to the premises of dealer.
He is not dependent on the dealer and on the other hand the dealer or the manufacturer of goods is dependent on the consumers. The consumers satisfaction is the most important thing to be looked into. The washing machine found defective within the period of warrantee. Therefore, the complainant wants replacement on the same. It is just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party No.2 to replace the defective washing machine with a new defect free washing machine. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-


ORDER

4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No.2 M/s Girias Investment Pvt. Ltd., is directed to replace with a new washing machine in place of a defective washing machine supplied to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non supply with brand new washing machine the opposite party No.2 is directed to refund Rs.11,550/- to the complainant.