Consumer Case No. 28 /2009

Between:-
Puvvala Venkateswara Rao, s/o.Satttiraju,

Flat No.10, Balakrishna Coral Apartments,

Besides Sarpavaram Police Station,

Kakinada. …. Complainant.

And

1) The Management, TEK Care (India) Pvt.Ltd.,

Venkata Raju Nagar, T.S.N. Colony,

Visakhapatnam – 530 016.

2) The Proprietor, M/s.Sri Raja Agencies,

13-1-56, Opp. Vijayalakshmi Hospital,

Main Road, Kakinada, E.G. Dist. …. Opposite parties.

This case coming on 8-12-2009 for final hearing, before this Forum in the presence of Sri D. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties having been set ex parte, and having stood over to this date for consideration, this Forum made the following;

O R D E R

(By Sri P. Vijender, President on behalf of the Bench)

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection, 1986 by the complainant seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay the value of washing machine purchased by him from the 2nd opposite party who is an agent-cum-dealer of the 1st opposite party for a value of Rs.6,800/- as same is defective and not functioning properly and for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damages caused to him due to gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the 1st opposite party is a manufacturer of Electrolux Washing Machine with its head office in Visakhapatnam. The 2nd opposite party is the agent/dealer of the 1st opposite party and the complainant purchased the washing machine from the 2nd opposite party on 6-7-2007 for a sum of Rs.6,800/-. At the time of purchase from the 2nd opposite party assured the complainant that the warranty of the washing machine is for 2 years and if any defect arises, it will be rectified free of cost. 10 months after purchase of the washing machine, it started giving troubles. Upon that the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party with a complaint on 24-5-2008. In response to it, the 2nd opposite party sent one mechanic by name Mr.Shoyab for attending the complaint. The said mechanic checked the washing machine and suggested that the company mechanic has to come as some of the parts are to be replaced. Thereafter the complainant sent repeated reminders and the response to it, the company mechanic namely Mr.Kali came on 4-6-2008 and after seeing the washing machine removed some of the parts stating that they are to be replaced by sending them to Vijayawada.

A week after visit of the company mechanic on 4-6-2008, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party about the status of supply of spare parts of the washing machine, but there was no proper response. Subsequent to that also the complainant made several representation and phone calls to the 2nd opposite party and area Manager and A.P. Service Head, even then there was no response. The complainant was made to move pillar to post by the opposite parties by their in action in attending the washing machine though there was warranty period of 2 years. Hence, the complainant got issued a notice on 12-5-2009 and same was returned with an endorsement ‘non-existence’ of the company at the given address. Hence, he got issued a fresh legal notice on 21-5-2009 to the opposite parties 1 and 2, but no reply from them. This shows callous attitude and gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties in rectifying the defect of the washing machine within the warranty period.

The opposite parties by their inaction and deficiency of service caused the mental agony to the complainant. Hence the present complaint.



3. Both the opposite parties in spite of service of the notice did not choose to appear to counter the claim of the complainant.

4. The complainant in support of his allegations in the complaint has got marked Exs.A1 to A6 documents.

5. On hearing the arguments and concerned documents placed on record, the point emerged for consideration is:

1) Whether the complainant is entitled for a value of washing machine

and damages claimed?
2) To what relief?

6. Point No.1:- The complainant in proof of purchase of the washing machine from the 2nd opposite party, who is the agent/dealer of the 1st opposite party filed the cash bill in Ex.A1 which shows purchase of the Electrolux washing machine for a sum of Rs.6,800/- on 6-7-2007. Ex.A2 is the warranty. Ex.A3 is the returned postal cover for the notice got issued to the opposite parties with an endorsement. Exs.A5 and A6 are the postal acknowledgement in proof of service of Ex.A4 notice on both the opposite parties. Ex.A1 is cash bill proved purchase of the washing machine by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party who is the agent/dealer of the 1st opposite party. The conditions on the warranty and cash bill shows the liability of the opposite parties for attending the complaint with regard to functioning of the Electrolux washing machine purchased by the complainant during the warranty period. In Ex.A4 notice, the complainant at length has explained that the washing machine was not functioning. The opposite parties in spite of receipt of Ex.A4 notice did not choose to even reply for the reasons best known to them. When the service of notice is proved and there is no reply to it denying the allegations in the notice, it amounts to admission of the allegations made in the notice. Similarly, the copies of the complaint were served on both the opposite parties, but they did not choose to contest the case of the complainant. This also amounts to allegations made in the complaint and admitted. That apart the complainant by filing Exs.A1 and A2 has proved the purchase of the Electrolux washing machine from the 2nd opposite party. A warranty period of 2 years is also proved and by Ex.A4 notice of the complainant, the opposite parties failed to attend the complaint with regard to functioning of the washing machine and thus there is a deficiency in rendering the service to the complainant by the opposite parties.

7. There is no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant in the complaint and his affidavit because the opposite parties have not chosen to contest it. Hence, the complainant version is considered. Since the washing machine is not functioning, the complainant is entitled for refund of the value of it from the opposite parties 1 and 2. Though the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damages due to mental agony suffered by him on account of inaction and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2, could not substantiate with regard to granting of damages claimed. Having regarding to these facts and circumstances, this Forum is of considered view to grant of Rs.5,000/- is sufficient enough to compensate the mental agony suffered by the complainant on account of inaction and deficiency of service by the opposite parties. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.



8. Point No.2:- In the result, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,800/- towards value of the washing machine purchased from the 2nd opposite party, the agent/dealer of the 1st opposite party, the manufacturer of the defective washing machine. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages caused to the complainant on account of inaction and deficiency in service by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties are also further directed to pay the interest for the value of washing machine and damages at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment of the amount. The complainant is also entitled a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of this complaint. Time for payment of amount awarded is two months from the date of receipt of this order.



Dictated to shorthand writer, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 10th day of December, 2009.