IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 31st day of May, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 253/2018 (Filed on 27-11-2018)
Petitioner : Dr. Hari Sankar,
S/o. K.S. Narayanan Nampoothiri,
Kalabhavan,
Kudamaloor, Kottayam,
Pin – 686017.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Pittappillil Agencies,
Digipark,
Near Nagampadam Bridge.
2) PRODIGY,
Authorised service center for
Godrej, 2nd Floor, Excel Tower,
Star Junction, M.C. Road,
Kottayam – 686001.
3) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Appliance Division,
Plant 11, Pirojshanagar,
Vikholi (W) Mumbai – 400079
Rep. by its General Manager.
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief of the complaint is as follows.
The complainant had purchased a semi-automatic washing machine (GWS6204PPD) from the 1st opposite party on 22-05-2017 for an amount of Rs.8,000/-. The third opposite party is the manufacturer of the washing machine and second opposite party is the authorised service centre. The Lint filter of the washing machine was damaged from the month of May, 2018. The complainant intimated the same to the service centre and requested for a replacement of the lint filter. The original spare part Lint filter had a mesh for the proper functioning of the machine. The second opposite party intimated that this GWS 6204 PPD model of the washing machine is outdated and proper spare parts were not available. On making repeated complaints, the second opposite party changed the spare part with a lint filter without having a lint bag and charged Rs.300/- for the same. Again on using the washing machine, the clothes were full of lint which made the washing of cloths difficult and damaging the cloths. Complaint was given to the third opposite party by repeated mails. But no action was taken by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties were not filed their version and continuously absent from the proceedings before the Commission. The opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 were set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Ext.A1 to A4.
On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complaint and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a semi-automatic washing machine GWS 6204 PPD model from the first opposite party on 22-05-2017 for a payment of Rs.8,000/-. The lint filter of the washing machine was damaged from the month of May 2018. The complaint was intimated to the second opposite party, the second opposite party changed the lint filter but the defect continued.
Ext.A1 is the invoice dtd.22-05-2017 issued by the first opposite party for the purchase of the washing machine with model GWS6204 PPD for an amount of Rs.8,000/-. Ext.A2 is the photo of the lint filter. Ext.A3 is the bill dated 16-07-2018 issued by the second opposite party charging Rs.300/- for the spare part. Ext.A4 is the instructions for clearing the lint filter given in the warranty manual. Eventhough the defect of the washing machine was reported to the second and third opposite parties, they failed to take action to rectify the defects of the washing machine within the period of warranty. This act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service on their part. Hence Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. We allow the complaint and pass the following Order.
- The second and third opposite parties are directed to repair the defect of the washing machine of the complainant free of cost to a perfect working condition within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
- The second and third opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant with cost of Rs.300/-
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of May, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of invoice dtd.22-05-17 issued by 1st opposite party
A2 series – photos of lint filter (2 nos.)
A3 – Copy of cash bill dtd,16-07-18 by 2nd opposite party
A4 – copy of instructions for clearing the lint filter given in the warranty
manual.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
