DATE OF FILING :02/05/18 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th  day of October 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO. 92/2018

Between

Complainant       :  Majo V.Kuriakose,

                                                       Vichattu House,

                                                       River View Road, Thodupuzha P.O., 

                                                       Thodupuzha. 

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party                                          :   1 . The Manger,

                                                         Nelloor Home Shop,

                                                         Choorappuzha Tower, Thodupuzha P.O.,

                                                         Thodupuzha.

                                                     2 . The Manager,

                                                         Samsung India Ltd.,

                                                         Gurgavan, Hariyana.

(By Adv:  K.S.Arundas)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

Complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine having code No.82 BWME from the first opposite party  shop on 29/12/12 manufactured by the second opposite party for Rs.17800/-.  At the time of purchase the first opposite party convinced that this brand is having high quality comparing to the same product of others, and having a high level after sale service and can use for a loan period without any problems.

 

From the date of purchase, the machine worked for 5 years and in the year 2018 machine showed some complaint, and it was duly intimated to the opposite parties and after registering the complaint, the service engineer of the opposite parties inspected the machine and found that the panel control board  and  water  filter of  the  machine  are damaged and the engineer stated

                                                                                         (Cont....2)

-2-

 

that they will replace these spares with new one.  After waiting a long period. On enquiry the first opposite party revealed that the spare part is not available and out of production and without the spare part defect cannot be curable.

 

Complainant further stated that normally a washing machine having such specialities can be used for a minimum period of 10 years, due to the non-availability of the spare parts he cannot use it further.  It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to provide spare part for a considerable period.  Non- production of spare part within a short period of production of a specific product, warranted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  and the aim of the opposite parties is to sell their new products.  Under this circumstances opposite parties are bound to replace the washing machine with a new one or else opposite parties are bound to return the price of the machine.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version the second opposite party contented that, the complainant purchased the alleged washing machine.  On 29th December 2012, and the present complaint he raised with the service centre during January 2017 and also by his own submission, the machine had no issues till 2017 end.  Thus it can be clearly concluded that the set had no manufacturing defect and if any issues as alleged by the complainant arose, the same was due to long usage and failure to follow usage guidelines provided to the complainant and including improper supply of electricity, in violation of the usage guidelines.  Opposite parties further contented that  from the second opposite party's  service centre proper service was provided to the complainant and he was informed of various alternative ways when any issues raised with any set after so long from purchase date.  As a goodwill gesture and as per company policy the complainant was also offered depreciative refunded of his set which was used from 2012 to 2017 without any complaint.

 

Opposite parties further contented that for establishing the defects alleged in the washing machine, no expert evidence was produced by the complainant and hence the complaint is not maintainable and the opposite parties or their agent, dealer or service centre has not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the complainant and is not responsible or liable to pay an amount to the complainant.

                                                                                         (Cont....3)

-3-

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and bill produced by the complainant dated 29/12/12 was marked as Ext.P1.  No oral or documentary evidence is adduced from the side of the opposite  parties.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsels for both the sides and perused the  evidence on record.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine manufactured by the second opposite party and used it 5 years smoothly.  As per the version of the complainant the defect noted to the machine was in the year 2018, and immediately getting  information about the defect the second opposite party deputed their service engineer and on inspection the service engineer of the second opposite party found that the PCB and the water filter of the machine was defective and such spare part are not available, because the second opposite party stopped its production.  The version of the complainant in this matter is, that the second opposite party  wilfully stopped the production of spare parts of this old model sets in order to force the public to purchase their new model sets.  More over electronic equipments like washing machine are meant it for use for a long period.  The act of non-production of spare parts of old model is gross unfair trade practice and denying proper after sale service of a product having a heavy price is a deficiency in service from the part of the second opposite party.

 

The allegation of the complainant is resisted by the opposite parties on the ground that complainant is failed to produce expert opinion to convince the Forum regarding the actual defect of the machine and also opposite parties pointed out that, the machine is worked smoothly for five years.  Opposite parties further stated that the warranty of the machine is already over and immediately after getting information about the defect they deputed their service engineer.

                                                                                         (Cont....4)

-4-

On going through the version of the opposite parties, the Forum is convinced that, the defect of the machine was founded by the experts of the opposite parties itself and no need of any other expert opinion in this matter.  More over even though the warranty period was over every consumer is having his right to get repaired the defective machines by paying its service cost.  Here within a short period of 5 years machine got damaged and at the same time opposite parties stopped the production of its spare parts.  It is a usual practice that the model of the electrical or electronic household item changes periodically.  Even if the model changes spare parts of the old model must be in circulation for a considerable period.  Hence no -availability of the spare parts of the above said washing machine created all the problems.  If it is available the complainant may be ready to bear its cost and service charges.  In such circumstances, the allegation of the complainant cannot be brushed asides that it is the business technique to enforce the general public to purchase their new products.  Hence the Forum is of a considered view that, the opposite parties stopped the production of spare parts of alleged model washing machine only with a malafide intention to cause damages to the customers who purchased their old model.   This act of the opposite parties is a gross deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the basis of above discussion, complaint allowed.  Forum directs the second opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.9000/- being the half price of the washing machine discussed above along with Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount stated above except the cost will bear 12% interest from the date of default till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2018.

 

                                                                       Sd/-

                                                             SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

             SRI. BENNY. K.  (MEMBER)

 

 

 

 

                                                                                       (Cont....5)

 

-5-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               - Majo V.Kuriakose

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            - Bill produced by the complainant dated 29/12/12 

 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

            Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT