BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER

C.C. No. 193/2012 Filed on 18.06.2012

Dated : 15.10.2013

Complainant:

Prasad C.I, CRA-134, Cheruvathoor, Chenchery Road, Nalanchira P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 015.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. IFB Industries Ltd., Sebastian Road, Kaloor, Kochi-682 017.

    

(By adv. S. Reghukumar)

2. Karthiks-India, IFB Authorized Service Centre, Valsala Bhavan, T.C 16/521, Kochar Road, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

    

   (By adv. Venganoor G. Sivasankar)

    

3. Nayendra Business Services, (Authorized Service Franchisee of IFB Industries Ltd.), BRERA-2, Burma Road, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 011.

(By adv. Eswara Prasad)

This C.C having been taken as heard on 12.09.2013, the Forum on 15.10.2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

Facts of the case is as follows: Complainant had taken an Annual Maintenance Contract, in short AMC with the opposite parties for his washing machine which was purchased in 1994. The period of AMC was from 25.01.2011 to 24.01.2012. He paid Rs. 2,284/- for availing this facility. During this AMC period, the washing machine got damaged, and he was forced to pay Rs. 450/- to replace an inlet hose and again it got damaged and the opposite parties were reluctant to do the repair. So he claims for compensation for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: The year of purchase of washing machine by the complainant as per the records of the 1^st opposite party is 1998. At present the machine is more than 15 years old. The warranty for the washing machine is only for two years. In this case complainant has taken an annual maintenance contract on 25.01.2011 for one year. The annual maintenance contract taken by the complainant specifically provides that AMC will not cover the damage to washing machine due to negligence and misuse. Further rubber and plastic components of the washing machine are not covered. In the case of the complainant's washing machine, the damage to the steel drum and its plastic tub was due to the presence of foreign hard materials i.e; coins. The steel drum during wash rotates 900 times per minute. Hence the presence of coins damages the steel drum and its plastic tub. Therefore it was specifically informed to the complainant that the AMC coverage is not available for such damage. Hence complainant was asked to pay Rs. 2,832/- being the price of steel drum and its tub. The part replaced is the inlet hose in order to prevent the leakage. Since inlet hose is a plastic component and not covered under AMC complainant voluntarily paid Rs. 450/- being the price of the inlet hose. There is absolutely no defect in the washing machine even after the lapse of 15 years of its functioning. The washing machine is even now in working condition. The damage caused to the steel drum and its tub is due to the misuse and negligence of the complainant and hence not covered under AMC.

2^nd opposite party filed version contending as follows: The 2^nd opposite party is totally an unnecessary party to the proceedings herein. It is true that, the complainant obtained an AMC with the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party. A customer can avail an AMC with IFB, through any of its authorized service centres throughout India, irrespective of the location of the customer and product. When there is any complaint from the customer, he can register the complaint through the common call centre number provided by the 1^st opposite party. Then the complaint will be rooted to the nearest service centres by the 1^st opposite party, then only, the service centre happened to be aware about the complaint. The customer will get the service according to the conditions of AMC, if the machine is covered with the AMC. Similarly, when a customer availed an AMC through any of the service centres of the 1^st opposite party, like the 2^nd opposite party, their role came to an end. Here in this case, the AMC is not denied by the 1^st opposite party and hence the complainant cannot raise any sort of allegations against the 2^nd opposite party. Here the alleged complaint was forwarded to the 3^rd opposite party by the 1^st opposite party and so the 2^nd opposite party was completely unaware about the complaint also. Moreover, it is evident from the complaint itself that the service engineers of the 3^rd opposite party attended the machine at the correct time without any fail. The complainant had no case that he contacted the 2^nd opposite party at any point of time and the only contention raised against the 2^nd opposite party, that he availed the AMC through them. But it is very clear like day light that the 2^nd opposite party or any of authorized service centres acted for and on behalf of the company.

3^rd opposite party filed version contending as follows: The grievance of the complainant was informed by the 1^st opposite party to the 3^rd opposite party as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed among them. Accordingly a mechanic was deputed to look into the grievance of the complainant. There was water leak from the washing machine and the exterior leak was rectified by replacing a genuine hose for which Rs. 450/- was charged from the complainant. As per the AMC agreement executed between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party plastic pipe components are excluded from the purview of replacement charges. It is further submitted that as per the inspection of the mechanic the inside drum was damaged due to negligence and misuse and it is presumed that some metal objects had accidentally fallen to the drum and as a result the drum was damaged while working. Such damages are not covered by the AMC and as such, this opposite party is not authorized to rectify the same or replace the same without charges and cost and the same was informed to the complainant and the complainant was advised to take up the matter with the 1^st opposite party if not willing to pay the charges and cost. Subsequently the matter was taken up by the complainant with the 1^st opposite party. It is submitted that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. This opposite party can act only within the ambit of the agreement with the 1^st opposite party. As per the AMC only those defects within the purview of the agreement can be rectified without charges and cost of replaced items.

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Reliefs and costs if any .

Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. 2^nd opposite party also filed affidavit.

Points (i) & (ii):- This is a complaint related to the terms and conditions of Annual Maintenance Contract, AMC. Complainant states that he had taken AMC from the 1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party. This fact is not denied by any of the opposite parties. AMC is admitted. But here, in the complaint, complainant vaguely says that his washing machine had a trouble, he contacted the opposite parties several times, but all in vain. Nature of the complaint to the machine is not stated anywhere. Opposite parties through their versions states that defect occurred to the drum and plastic tub of the machine, which might have happened due to the misuse and negligence of the complainant for which AMC is not applicable. Here for proper adjudication of this complaint, terms and conditions of AMC is very vital. Both sides fail to produce this vital document. Complainant says that he had not even received the documents of AMC, but he does not have a case that after receiving money for the same, AMC was not issued. He alleges deficiency on opposite parties for their negligent attitude by not repairing his washing machine as per AMC, free of cost. He produced copies of several letters addressed to different opposite parties. Perused all the documents, but terms and conditions of AMC was the crucial document, which was missing. Like that complainant vaguely says that the machine has to be repaired, what was the trouble for which he contacted the opposite parties to rectify is not mentioned anywhere. Only opposite parties' version is before us to assume the defect. So that question is also not answered properly by the complainant. Since the party in person is appearing before the Forum, we suggested him to took out an expert opinion to find out the defects, for which he was reluctant to do so. Nature of defect is not established before us. Even if it is established we were not in a position to judge whether it will come under the purview of AMC, since the vital document of AMC is not before us. So the complainant failed miserably to establish his case.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order on costs and compensation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of October 2013.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

R. SATHI : MEMBER

jb