THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
APPEAL NO.579/2017
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. M/s IFB Industries Ltd,
No.17, Vishweshwaraiah Industrial
Estate, Opp. Whitefield Road,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bengaluru …Appellant/s
Represented by Sri.Prasad,
Executive Manager
2. M/s Vivek Limited
K.H.Road, No.94,
Tunga Towers,
Bengaluru-560 038
Represented by Managing Director
(By Sri.K.V.Somashekara Reddy, Advocate)
V/s
Nagendra K
S/o. late Kempashetty,
Aged about 56 years,
R/a No.26, Srinivas Nilaya, … Respondent/s
1st Floor, 2nd Mission Road,
CKC Garden, Bengaluru- 560 038
(By Sri.H.M.Manjunath, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 have filed this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, which directed them to refund an amount of Rs.30,000-00 towards purchase of the Washing Machine with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also directed the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.35,000-00 towards compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.10,000-00 towards litigation expenses.
2. The brief facts of complaint is that;
The complainant had purchased a IFB Front Loading 7.0 kg Elite Aqua SX Ultra-silver Washing Machine from the Opposite Parties on 19-11-2012 by paying an amount of Rs.30,000-00. After purchase, the Opposite Parties have issued a bill vide No.21511201773 and provided ten years guarantee. On 5-10-2015 the complainant noticed some technical problems in the appliance, immediately he informed to Opposite Party No.1 and 2 for which the 2nd Opposite Party instructed the complainant to contact the 1st Opposite Party. Immediately he contacted the 1st Opposite Party to get the problem solved. After receiving the complaint, the Opposite Party nos.1 and 2 sent service person to rectify the defects. The said service person has replaced the hose pipe/delivery pipe and charged Rs.500-00 as service charge. Even after the replacement of the hose pipe/delivery pipe, the said appliance was not working properly again he informed the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 for rectification. In turn they arranged one service person, the said service person informed that rat mesh was not installed in the washing machine due to which the washing machine was not working properly and unable to wash the cloth. The rat mesh is very essential product which has to be inserted in the washing machine in order to protect the working condition of washing machine. The Opposite Parties have sold the product without rat mesh hence, they played unfair trade practice in delivering the defective product to the complainant. The said facts was also informed to the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties have not made any attempt to substitute the defective washing machine with a new one hence filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission and alleged unfair trade practice.
3. The appellants/respondents were not appeared before the District Consumer Commission to take any defence with the allegations made by the complainant. In spite of service of notice, they placed exparte. The District Consumer Commission after accepting all the evidence and documents produced by the complainant have allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 to refund an amount of Rs.30,000-00 along with compensation as stated above, against which the Opposite Parties before this Commission.
4. The learned advocate for appellants vehemently argued that the notice was not served on them as the complainant had provided wrong address in order to intentionally place this appellant exparte and obtained exparte order. The washing machine delivered to the complainant was in a good condition at the time of purchase, they have provided owner’s manual to operate the washing machine but the complainant failed to follow up the instruction provided in the manual and not utilized the washing machine. It is only due to his negligence there was a problem persistent in the washing machine. Hence, they are not liable to pay any award amount passed by the District Consumer Commission and prayed to set-aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission.
5. Heard from both parties.
6. On going through the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, we noticed here that, the District Consumer Commission after the admission of complaint has issued notice to the Opposite Party no.1 and 2, the said notice was served whereas pleadings in the memorandum of appeal disclosed that, the notice was served to the appellant on 14-5-2006. The one of the office assistant had misplaced the said notice, believing that the said notice was not concerned to the company and not sent to the legal department for which they placed exparte and non-appearance before the District Consumer Commission is not intentional for bonafide reasons. We noticed that, there is a clear negligence on the part of officers who have not informed the Opposite Parties with respect to the notice issued by the District Consumer Commission. The said reason for setting aside the exparte order is not acceptable. Furthermore, we noticed here that, one of the service person who serviced the washing machine has informed that, there was missing of rat mesh in the washing machine. The Opposite Parties after receipt of the complaint could have received the defective washing machine and provided a new washing machine having rat mesh instead of that the Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 have kept quiet and the complainant constrained to file the complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging unfair trade practice and it is clear case of unfair trade practice in selling the washing machine without having rat mesh. The District Consumer Commission was rightly allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.30,000-00 along with compensation. We found the order passed by the District Consumer Commission has no any irregularity. Therefore no interference is required. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
