J. Suresh Kumar Vs. Whirlpool of India (Pvt) Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director and Others

J. Suresh Kumar vs Whirlpool of India (Pvt) Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai Decided Jan 24, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1148689

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1148689
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Judge: R. Regupathi, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. J. Jayaram, Judicial Member
Decided On: Jan 24, 2014
Case Number: F.A.No. 524 of 2011
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

J. Suresh Kumar

Respondent

Whirlpool of India (Pvt) Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director and Others

Excerpt

.....being loss of memory, and non-function of the dryer and the defect could not be rectified by the 3rd opposite party. the complainant demanded replacement of the washing machine by providing a new one on the ground that the washing machine had manufacturing defects; but the 3rd opposite party could not rectify the defects and all these, amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of rs.14,400/- which is the cost of the machine or to replace it with a new one and to pay a sum of rs.2,500/- paid by the complainant for service charges; and to pay rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony. 3. according to the 1st opposite party, there were no manufacturing defects and the defects were properly attended to by the service dealer and a sum of rs.2,500/- was collected by the service dealer as the complaint insisted on a kit and the cost of which is rs.1,000/- and freight charges of rs.1,500/- was collected in total and there is no deficiency in service on their part.4. according to the 2nd opposite party, the complainant did not follow the correct procedure. 5. the 3rd opposite party contended that for chemical wash rs.1,200/- was charged and rs.1,300/- was claimed for transporting the washing machine from coimbatore to the house of the complainant at mettupalayam.6. the district forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 7. the contention of the appellant / complainant is that there was manufacturing defect in the washing machine and his request to replace the defective washing machine with a new one or to pay the cost of the machine was not accepted by the opposite parties and charging a sum of rs.2,500/- for the services by the opposite parties on 16-11-2009 amount to deficiency in.....

Full Judgment

J. Jayaram, Judicial Member

This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C. No.196/2010, dated 08-02-2011, dismissing the complaint.2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Washing Machine from the 2^nd opposite party on 13-3-2008 for Rs.14,400/- with two year warranty. The washing machine frequently developed problems and the 3^rd opposite party who is the authorized service dealer used to attend and rectify the defects. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards service charges. However, the washing machine became defective and did not function on 16-11-2009, the alleged reason being loss of memory, and non-function of the dryer and the defect could not be rectified by the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant demanded replacement of the washing machine by providing a new one on the ground that the washing machine had manufacturing defects; but the 3^rd opposite party could not rectify the defects and all these, amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.14,400/- which is the cost of the machine or to replace it with a new one and to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- paid by the complainant for service charges; and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony. 3. According to the 1^st opposite party, there were no manufacturing defects and the defects were properly attended to by the service dealer and a sum of Rs.2,500/- was collected by the service dealer as the complaint insisted on a kit and the cost of which is Rs.1,000/- and freight charges of Rs.1,500/- was collected in total and there is no deficiency in service on their part.4. According to the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant did not follow the correct procedure.

5. The 3^rd opposite party contended that for chemical wash Rs.1,200/- was charged and Rs.1,300/- was claimed for transporting the washing machine from Coimbatore to the house of the complainant at Mettupalayam.6. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

7. The contention of the appellant / complainant is that there was manufacturing defect in the washing machine and his request to replace the defective washing machine with a new one or to pay the cost of the machine was not accepted by the opposite parties and charging a sum of Rs.2,500/- for the services by the opposite parties on 16-11-2009 amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. Per contra, the contention of the respondents / opposite parties is that there was no manufacturing defect in the washing machine and a sum of Rs.2,500/- was collected from the complainant on 16-11-2009 for complete check up and MAK cleaning (Chemical wash) and transportation of the washing machine from Coimbatore to Mettupalayam.

9. Further, it is pertinent to note that the washing machine had been purchased on 13-3-2008 and the defect was attended to by the opposite parties on 16-11-2009 and as observed by the District Forum, the washing machine had been functioning for about one year and eight months after the date of purchase which establishes that there was no manufacturing defect in the machine and had there been any manufacturing defect, the machine would not have functioned for such a long period. Further, it is significant to note that no experts opinion was placed before the Forum to establish that the washing machine had manufacturing defect. Considering all these, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

10. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

11. There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum, and we agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed

12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. No order as to costs in the appeal.

Same Court & Year Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC... Same Parties J. Suresh Kumar vs Whirlpool of India (Pvt) Ltd. Represented ... Same Subject Education Same Judge R. Regupathi, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. J. Jayaram, ...