DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALAPPURAM
(Present: Smt. E.Ayishakutty, Member, (In-Charge of President)
Sri. Mohammed Musthafa Koothradan, Member)
Date of filing: 09-07-2012
Date of Order: 28-01-2013
C.C.No.160/2012
V.Moideen,
“Arafa” House, Complainant
Pattarkulam, Narukara. P.o,
Manjeri – 676122.
(By: Adv. Abdul Nazer,P.K)
Vs
IFB Industries Limited,
36/1823 Sebastian Road, Opposite party
Kaloor, Kochi – 682017.
(Exparte)
ORDER
By: Smt. E.Ayishakutty, Member, (In-Charge of President)
The complainant herein entered in a Annual Maintenance contract with opposite party at Manjeri for the product of IFB Microwave oven on 01.02.2011 for a period from 01.02.2011 to 31.01.2013 and for IFB washing Machine on 27.07.2011 for a period from 27.07.2011 to 26.07.2012. For that the complaint paid an amount of Rs. 2206/- for the product of Microwave Oven and Rs. 1986/- for the product of washing machine inclusive of all taxes as per the terms and conditions of the contract entered between the complainant and opposite party, the opposite party or their authorized service franchisee is responsible to carry out any repairs of the appliances. The complainant continues to be a customer of this service for a long term and the franchisee of the opposite party at Mongam, the nearest service franchisee, used to service the appliances all along the previous occasions.
When the appliances became defective in the first week of September, even though the complainant informed the matter to the service center directly and by phone, they have not turned up, and at last they instructed the complainant to purchase a new one. They also informed the complaint that the advise for purchase of the new one is made by them on the instruction of the opposite party.
Thereafter on 07.09.2011 the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice to the opposite party showing the violation of the Annual Maintenance Contract entered between them and calling upon to rectify the defects of the products within 7 days of service of the notice. The notice send in the addresses shown in the maintenance contract; the notice send to the address at Kochi had served on the opposite party and the notice send to Kozhikode Office returned unserved.
Eventhough notice served on the opposite party and repeated phone calls to complaint cell at Bangaluru in permanent ID No. 1132818 the opposite party never need to rectify the defects of the washing machine till date. Hence he filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
Complainant prays to direct opposite party to rectify the defect of the washing machine with necessary replacements of parts as per the maintenance contract and extent the period of contract for one year more and such other reliefs.
Notice issued to opposite party on 21/8/2012. Acknowledgment receipt not returned presumed to be served name called absent set exparte. Complainant filed affidavit and documents as proof of evidence. Complainant submit that while the alleged appliance became defective in the first week of September 2011 he informed the complaint to the service center directly and by phone, but opposite party did not rectified the defect of the product. At last to he continuous calling of complaint opposite party instructed to purchase a new machine made by them on the instruction of the opposite party.
Then complainant send a lawyer notice to opposite party showing the violation of AMC entered between them. It was served on the office of opposite party at Cochi and notice sent to the Kozhikode office returned unserved eventhough the notice received to opposite party in their Cochi office, nothing was done by them to rectify the defect of the washing machine till the day. Ext.A3 shows that complainant issued the lawyer notice to opposite party on 7/9/2011 and Ext. A5 shows that opposite party had received the lawyer notice on 12/9/2011. Ext. A2 the original payment receipt produced by the complainant shows that complainant and opposite party made the Annual Maintenance contract on 27/7/2011 to 26/7/2012 and complainant paid Rs. 1986 to opposite party on 27/7/2011. From the above documents it is clear the opposite party violated the terms and conditions of the AMC entered between them with the complainant. Therefore we hold that opposite party is deficient in their service and hence opposite party is liable to rectify the defect of the alleged washing machine. He is liable to extent period of AMC since the complainant has not received the benefit of the AMC though the machine become defective during the AMC period.
In the result the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to rectify the complaint of the alleged washing machine on free of charge and extent the period of AMC for one year after rectifying the defect. Failing which opposite party is directed to return the amount of Rs. 1986 which he had collected from the complainant with compensation of Rs. 1000 along with Rs. 1000 as cost. The order shall comply with in 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 28th day of January , 2013
Sd/-
E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER, (In-Charge of President)
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1 : Annual Maintenance Contract dated,25/12/2006
Ext.A2 : Invoice cum receipt, dated,27-07-2011
Ext A3 : Regd. Post with A/D, dated, 7/9/2011
Ext A4 : Lawyer notice with A/D
Ext A5 : Acknowledgment
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Sd/-
E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER, (In-Charge of President)
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN,MEMBER
