Sri Ram Sales, Chas v NeeDistrict Consumer Forum, Bokaro
Consumer Case No.-54 /2009
Neetu Sinha w/o Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha
R/o GB-18, City Centre, P.O. & P.S.- Sec-4, Bokaro Steel City. Dist.- Bokaro.
Vs.
1. Sri Ram Sales, Sri Ram Mansion, By Pass Road, Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.
2. Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Chandni 107-A, Old A.G. colony, Kandr, Ranchi-834002
3. Mirc Electronic Ltd., Onida House-G-1 MIDC, Mahakali Caves Rd. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093.
Present-
S.M. Alam, President
Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment- 18/11/2009
Date of Case filing-08/07/2009
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has filed this consumer case against the opposite parties for replacement of washing machine or to pay the cost price of washing machine besides Rs. 10000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony.
2 Brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased a Onida automatic washing machine model Tumble -50 serial no. 0510038310 from Sri Ram Sales situated at Sri Ram Mansion By Pass Road, Chas, Bokaro on 10.10.2006 with 2 years warranty by paying cash worth Rs. 15001/- vide bill no. 460 dated 10.10.2006 inclusive of vat. The warranty of 2 years was given by the opposite party No.1 on behalf of the opposite party no.3 regarding sufficient performance of the machine with assurance to give urgent service as and when required. The said machine started functioning quit satisfactorily but after 3 months failed to dry cloth with improper draining of water giving all sort of trouble hampering the day to day concerned work leading to constant loss and mental agony. The matter was reported to the dealer several times but the machine could not be repaired. Mr. Dutta service incharge at City Centre, Bokaro said that the required part is not available. The moment co. sends, it will be repaired. The complainant was in regular touch with the dealer and Mr. Dutta and also with Mr. Rahman at service centers Adonis Ranchi for 9 to 10 months and also sent several letters in this regard. However after a period of 10 months in January, 2008 Mr. Dutta told that the water mump of some other model has been received by him from the company which is not be fitted, as such the said model was not sent back to the company and asked for the appropriate part. But in steed of her all efforts Mr. Rahman service centre Ranchi could able to repaired in Sept. 08 which again went out of order in the last week of December, 2008 and since December 2008 till now, the company could not repaired the machine although they tried several times to repair it but with no result rather they destroyed that machine and ultimately they took that machine to the service centre on instruction of Mr. Rahman, Ranchi on 28.03.2009 and have not given the repaired machine. The complainant several times contacted the opposite party but the company neither replaces the machine nor repaired it, reason best known to the opposite party. The complainant could use the machine about 6 months in 2 phases against its warranty period of 2 years. Till now She was in the trap of their false assurance to repair it thoroughly soon. Thus as a result on manufacture restrictive trade practices and deficient service rendered by the opposite parties She has suffered losses/injury and mental agony for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate.
3 Upon issuance of notices, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written statement, stating therein that there is only sale point for Onida appliances and electronics and opposite party no.1 is not responsible for maintenance and warranty, as warranty is under sole jurisdiction of the product manufacturing company. However, the opposite party no.1 admits that he sold a fully automatic front loading Tumble 50 washing machine from his shop on 10.10.2006 and warranty card issued by the manufacturer duly signed by the opposite party no.1 was issued to the complainant on behalf of the manufacturer. The opposite party whenever received the complaint from the customer he forwarded the complaint to the Company for quick service. The opposite party no.1 further admits that the complainant continuously visited the sale shop of the opposite party no.1 but the machine could not be repaired due to none availability of appropriate part for very long period and ultimately, the opposite party no.1 requested to the company to either repaired the machine with extended warranty or replace the machine with working machine. The opposite party further asserted that he advised to the complainant to approach the company of her own for the same and given the postal and E-mail address. However the opposite party is unable to make out as to what exactly is the problem of the complainant with regard to the service rendered by the opposite party no.1 so as to decide about deficiency in service, so apparently there is no deficiency in service on behalf the opposite party no.1. The complainant has also not raised any demand from this opposite party no.1. Under the facts and circumstances above, the present consumer case is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed.
4 Opposite party no.2 and 3 neither appeared nor filed their written statement and hence proceeding preceded Ex-parte against them.
5 We heard the complainant and opposite party no.1 and perused the case records and documents filed by the parties. The purchase of the Onida Washing Machine in question by the complainant from the opposite party no.1 on 10.10.2006 on payment of Rs. 15001.87 and the defects in the machine within the warranty period is admitted facts. It is observed that the opposite party no.1 forwarded the complaint in the machine to the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 and coordinated with them for its rectification. But the machine could not be set right, in spite of all the efforts taken by the opposite party no.2.
6 In view of the above it is concluded that there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine in question. We, therefore, hold the opposite party no.3 negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant. The opposite party no.3 is hence held liable to pay relief to the complainant.
7 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party no.3 Mirc-Electronic Ltd., Onida House, G-1, MIDC, Mahakali Caves Rd. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 is directed to replace free of cost the washing machine in question by a new one of the same make and model, or alternatively to refund Rs. 15001.87 (Rs. Fifteen thousand one and eighty seven paise) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The above opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred) only as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Member (lady) Member President
tu Sinha