Date of Filing : 12.04.2011
Date of Order : 30.11.2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE URBAN 4th ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
No. 8, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560 052
Dated 30th NOVEMBER 2011
PRESENT
Sri. J.N. HAVANUR ….. PRESIDENT
Sri. GANGANARASAIAH ….. MEMBER
Smt. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR ….. MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 717 / 2011
Sri. S. Bhaskar, S/o. Suresh Kumar,
Aged about 39 years,
No.71, 1st Main, P.F. Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore – 560 040. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The General Manager,
IFB Industries Ltd,
Plot No.IND-5, Sector-1,
East Calcutta Township,
Kolkata – 700 078.
2. The Manager,
M/s. IFB Industries Ltd,
16/17, Whitefield Road,
Vishveshwaraya Industrial Estate,
Bangalore – 560 048.
3. The Authorized Dealer,
Girias Investment (P) Ltd.,
No.1035/, 20th Main Road,
5th Block, W.O.C. Road, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
4. The Proprietor,
M/s. Sriram Services,
The Authorized Service Franchisee,
For IFB, No.115/1, S.K.Plaza,
Kathriguppe Main Road, B.S.K. III Stage,
Bangalore – 560 085. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Smt. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief facts of the complaint filed by the Complainant are that the Complainant has purchased IFB Washing Machine, Model FLTS: ELITE: DX: 5:5 kg on 26/09/2010 from OP3 who is a dealer of OP1 by paying Rs.22,300/-, for which OP3 has issued receipt dated 26/09/2010. The said machine carries one year warranty from the date of purchase. On 29/09/2010 it has been installed by OP4. After few days of installation, the problem cropped up, the Complainant heard the abnormal sound in the washing machine and immediately he registered the complaint with customer care dated 03/11/2010. The service engineer of OP4 inspected the machine on the next day and said that the noise is common in this type of heavy motor. Again he faced same problem within 10 days and lodged complaint on 16/11/2010. The service engineer of OP2 attended the problem and traced that the circuit board is defective and he took the circuit board stating that he will be replacing the same within 3-4 days. But he neither replaced the circuit board nor rectified the defect. On 25/11/2010 while running the machine, all of a sudden, the machine stopped working and Complainant lodged complaint immediately. Like this often the machine stop working and the complaint is registered 4-5 times with Ops’ customer care. OPs neither rectified the defect nor replaced the machine which has manufacturing defect. But on 03/12/2010, when the Complainant called customer care unit of IFB i.e., OP2 enquiring about the complaint, he was shocked and surprised to listen the reply that the complaint is already closed. The Complainant again met Ops 2 to 4 on 05/12/10 & 07/12/2010 and requested them to rectify the defect and make it to work properly. Everybody has given evasive reply. On 08/12/2010 service engineer made temporary arrangement and installed the different model circuit board. Later also Ops have not taken any interest to replace the same Model Circuit Board instead of different model after several requests and e-mails. Then he issued legal notice dated 28/2/2011 to OPs which were duly served on them. They have not taken any action in this regard. Therefore, Complainant approached this Forum seeking direction to OPs to replace the Washing Machine or to repay the amount of Machine with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony & torture and other reliefs.
2. Notices sent to Ops 1 to 4 through RPAD were duly served on them. Op 1 and 2 represented through their Advocate and filed their statement of objection. Ops 3 & 4 were absent on the date of appearance. Hence, they were placed exparte. OPs 1 & 2 have submitted that the Complainant has falsely alleged about job card dated 03/11/2010, 16/11/2010 & 25/11/2010. There are no such job cards as alleged by the Complainant. And they also submitted that the Complainant has not registered any complaints with the OP on the above dates. The job cards will not be raised just because a complaint is registered. It is false submission of the complainant regarding registration of complaints. The Complainant has failed to produce the documents in spite of their request. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the Complainant, Ops 1 & 2 have filed their affidavit evidences reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with his complaint produced copies of documents and along with the affidavit he has produced original copies of receipt issued by OP3, job card/installation sheet dated 20/12/2010, user manual with warranty card, bills of BSNL from 01/11/2010 to 01/02/2011 and SMS statements of telephone department, copy of email letters, copy of notice issued to Ops 1 & 2 and acknowledgements, copy of legal notice sent to Ops 1 to 4 and acknowledgement, reply letter written by an advocate for OP2, copy of brochure and web details of OP1. We have heard the counsels for the Complainant and Ops 1 & 2 and perused the records.
4. On the above materials, following points arise for determination.
1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in service in not rectifying the washing machine.
2. If so, what relief the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our finding on the above points is as under:
Point No. 1 - Affirmative
Point No. 2 - As per final order
REASONS
6. Point No. 1 - We have gone through the contention of both parties, It is no doubt true that there was transaction between the Complainant and Opposite parties and complainant has purchased the IFB Washing Machine on 26/09/2010 by paying Rs.22,650/- from Sri Girias Investment (P) Ltd i.e., OP3. The same was installed on 29/09/2010 by OP4. The Complainant has proved purchase of washing machine by paying Rs.22,650/- by producing documents. The problem of abnormal sound occurred in the Washing Machine within few days from the date of its purchase. The same was intimated to customer care unit of OP1 and the complaint was registered with them. As per the Complainant’s submission, OP4 attended the problem and went without rectification. When the complainant faced the problems frequently, he lodged complaints with customer care unit and many times OP4 attended the problem, but not rectified the defect as per the satisfaction of Complainant. The Complainant has mentioned registration numbers like 5370515, 5434917, 5473398 dated 03/11/2010, 16/11/2010 & 25/11/2010 respectively which are denied by Ops 1 & 2. In pursuance of denial, the Complainant could not prove that he lodged complaints about the defectiveness of washing machine. Therefore, simply from the denial of OP1 & 2, we cannot come to conclusion that he did not register the complaint with OP1 since they are all telephonic complaints made to customer care of OP1. At the same time, by perusal of telephone bills, we can not decide that the Complainant has called the particular person and for particular purpose. The Complainant has produced only one job card dated 20/12/2010 issued by customer service department of OP1, but nowhere the service engineer has signed and not made any remarks about the machine. When the machine was within the warranty period, if any defect is found in the machine, the same is to be attended immediately either of Ops. If it is in a condition to rectify, the same has to be rectified in such a condition that the machine must work properly. Otherwise, must take necessary action to satisfy the customer i.e., the Complainant. Only considering the complaint lodged with OP1 with registration numbers, we are of the view that unless the machine is having manufacturing defect, the Complainant need not register many complaints about it. Hence, it is liable to be replaced. The same was claimed by the Complainant through his notice dated 22/01/2011 and through legal notice dated 27/02/2011. But either of the OPs have replied to the notice served on them or they approached the Complainant to rectify the defect. It made him to approach to this Forum. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
7. OPs have not replied to the email correspondences as well as notices sent to OPs calling upon to rectify the defect or replace the machine which should run in good condition. The opportunity was given to OP3 & 4 by sending notice through Forum. But they were absent when they were called. Therefore, we cannot disbelieve the complaint of the Complainant against OPs. All these circumstances indicate that Ops have caused deficiency in service and they are liable to compensate for that.
8. The Complainant has failed to prove that the problem in the Washing Machine was attended by either of Op’s by producing the Job Cards and failed to confirm that the machine was having manufacturing defect by obtaining endorsement by the technician. He failed to produce job cards to prove that the problem has occurred within short span and telephone bills which are produced by the Complainant will not prove that the complainant has pursued that matter with OPs. Considering the grievance of the Complainant and warranty of the machine which is within one year of its purchase, which may cause inconvenience and mental agony to the Complainant, he is entitled to get the machine replaced but not the amount of washing machine. The first claim of the Complainant is to replace the machine with new and next alternative relief he sought is refund of money in case of Ops have failed to replace. Hence, he is entitled for replacement of washing machine. Accordingly, we answered Point No. 1 in affirmative and proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed.
Ops 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the Washing Machine with the same Model or any Model with same cost within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which Ops 1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs.22,650/- with interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of purchase till it is repaid.
The Complainant is directed to handover the defective Washing Machine after the replacement of new washing machine.
Ops 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of the proceedings.
The Complaint as against Ops 3 & 4 is dismissed.
Both parties are given free copies of the order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
SSS
