N.SRIRAM vs P.Govindarajan

THIS appeal is by the 1st opposite party officer out of the three opposite parties officers of M/s. IFB Industries Limited against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum. The complainant had purchased a washing machine from the opposite parties Company for a sum of Rs. 13,995/- in January-February, 1992. According to the complainant, it was a washing machine with 18 washing programmes manufactured to work at a voltage range of 165 V to 265 V with a motor rating of 260 W (wash) and 540w (spin). The washing machine was working satisfactorily till May, 1995. From May, 1995, due to low voltage of electricity, the washing machine started giving trouble and it refused to function at a voltage less than 220 V. At 220 V and above, the machine worked perfectly. Since invariably during day time there would be low voltage the complainant had to make use of the machine only in the night time. The matter was reported to the opposite parties. The opposite parties advised him to purchase a voltage stabiliser and the complainant purchased a voltage stabiliser for Rs. 2,875/-. The motor did not conform to the technical specifications and as such the sale of the machine amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. On these grounds the complainant was filed for compensation for mental agony, monetary loss and expenses.

THE opposite parties contended that the machine was working at the voltage range of 165 V to 265 V. Normally any machine would tend to function less effectively as the voltage would drop and that would not indicate any defect in the machine. Due to abnormal voltage fluctuations the stabiliser could not have been of much use. THE motor could not be replaced by the opposite parties free of cost after the guarantee period. Generally for any manufacturing prod act nobody would give warranty for life time. THE averment that the machine did not conform to the specifications was denied. THErefore the opposite parties were not liable to pay any compensation. The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, came to the conclusion that the opposite parties had given out in Ex. A2 technical data supplied to the complainant that the washing machine would effectively function in the voltage range of 165 V to 265 V and it was not disputed that when the voltage fell below 220V there was no smooth functioning of the washing machine to achieve its purpose. It further held that the opposite parties should have provided an in-built mechanism to avert lesser efficiency even during low voltage but no such thing had been provided. Therefore when the machine did not function properly when the voltage was less than 220V it could be easily concluded that the assurance given in the technical data was never intended to be acted upon and this would show that there was unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Thus holding the District Forum directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs. 2,500/- being the cost of the motor replaced and Rs. 1,500/- as compensation for mental agony and disappointment, besides a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost.

Now in the appeal, it is argued by the appellant/1st opposite party that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in law or on facts. After careful consideration of the matter, we find that there is merit in this submission. The machine had been purchased during January February, 1992. The complainant had made use of it for three years and only in May, 1995, according to him, during low voltage, the machine was not functioning properly. The opposite parties had given a guarantee card to the complainant. It had not been filed before the District Forum and now it has been produced before us by the respondent/complainant. The first sentence therein begins with these words : "This washing machine is guaranteed against all manufacturing defects for two year from the date of sale..."

This shows that even in the case of any manufacturing defect, the opposite parties would be liable only for two years. Now, admittedly even according to the complainant the machine did not function properly only in May, 1995, i.e., three years after the purchase. Therefore now it cannot be complained that there is manufacturing defect in the machine and for that the opposite parties are liable.

IN this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.