WHITELINE APPLIANCES vs SUDHA PRASAD

: THIS is an appeal against the order the District Forum dated 26.4.90/14.5.90 in case no. 510/90 entitled Mrs. Sudha Prasad v. Whiteline Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Trak Appliances Pvt. Ltd. wherein the District Forum had ordered the appellant, respondent No. 1 in the District Forum, to pay Rs. 15,700/- together with interest @ 15% per annum from 13.10.89 till the date of payment and Rs. 2,000/- as damages within a month of the date of order, failing which action under Consumer Protection Act shall be taken against them.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Mrs. Sudha Prasad, the respondent, purchased a Trak Supermatic Washing Machine on 9.10.89 for a sum of Rs. 15,700/- from M/s Whiteline Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. situated at B-45,9, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Purarn, New Delhi manufactured by Trak Appliances Pvt. Ltd. having registered office at 5-Smith Road, Mount Road, Madras-600 002. She lodged a complaint in the District Forum on 7.3.90 stating that the washing machine had been constantly giving trouble since the very installation of the machine and requested for refund of rupees 15,700/- along with interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- from the agent of the manufacturer. We have examined the service card of M/s Whiteline Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. M.C. No. 1272 (Annexure P-4) wherein we find that respondent had made four complaints after the purchase of washing machine on 9.10.89 and installation on 12.10.89. First one on 7.11.89 almost one month after installation and the second on 11.11.89. In both the complaints it was mentioned that the machine was making "noise". The pump was adjusted and checked in response to the first complaint and all the nuts were tightened while attending to the second complaint. At this time it was also discovered that the noise was due to the imbalance created by the wooden board on which the machine was placed by the respondent No. 1, complainant in the District Forum. The third complaint was made after a gap of almost 3 1/2 months on 23.2.90, stating that the front door opened and there was noise. This complaint was attended on 24.2.90 and the front door was adjusted. The noise was attributed to the wooden stand on which the machine was placed. The fourth complaint was attended to on 3.3.90 as the machine was not working. At this time pump wire and earth wire were adjusted and the wooden platform on which the machine had been placed was removed. The persual of the complaints made shows that the machine gave trouble free service for a period of almost 3 1/2 months from 11.11.89 to 23.2.90 and earlier for a period of one month from 12.10.89 to 9.11.89.

The learned Counsel for the appellant forcefully argued that respondent No. 1, complainant in the District Forum, had made vague allegations and had failed to establish any specific defect in the washing machine. She had complained mostly about the "noise" made by the washing machine. Further she had not been using the washing machine strictly according to the operating instructions issued by the manufacturers M/s Trak Applances Pvt. Ltd. He brought to our notice the fact that while attending to the complaints made on 11.11.89 and 23.2.90 it was discovered that respondent No. 1 suo-moto had installed the washing machine on a wooden stand. This created imbalance and was not advised to be used by the manufacturer. This fact was communicated to respondent No. 1 who was advised to remove the wooden stand. While the attending to the respondent''s complaint on 3.3.90 it was again discovered that the wooden stand had not been removed by respondent No. 1 despite earlier advice, thus resulting in unbalanced operation. The service engineer himself removed the wooden stand and the washing machine began functioning normally. Respondent No. 1 made no further complaint to the appellant after this but filed a complaint on 7.3.90 in the District Forum alleging inter alia that "the machine was constantly giving trouble". No further details were given with regard to any alleged defect in the machine or whether any complaint had been registered which had not been rectified by the representative of the petitioner. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and examining the service record we note that the washing machine gave satisfactory service for a period of almost one month from 12.10.89, when it was installed, to 7.11.89 when the first complaint about "noise" was made, again from 11.11.89 to 23.2.90 for a period of 3 1/2 months. After using the washing machine for varying periods of time the respondent No. 1, complainant in the District Forum, had prayed for the refund of the cost of machine Rs. 15,700/- alongwith interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- so that she could buy a washing machine of another make. In the present technological age when electric and electronic appliances of various brands are available, a consumer needs to be vigilant and his choice should be backed up with a market survey for comparing prices and performance. It is common knowledge that performance of an appliance of different makes is not similar. A person has to make a choice of the appliance he wants to purchase out of those which are available in the market at the time of purchase. Having made the choice, he should not be enamoured of other brands, especially after using the product of his choice of some period. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 had used the washing machine for a period of about six months before she made a complaint for refund of the price to the District Forum. It has also been established that she did not use the machine according to the operating instructions as laid down by the manufacturer. In the complaint she has not given the dates when the machine did not function. She did not serve any notice on the appellants that the machine was not functioning. The job card which has been produced shows that the only complaint of respondent No. 1 regarding washing machine on first three occasions was that the machine when operated made some noise. The machine was inspected by the machanic of the appellant on 9.11.89, 11.11.89, 23.2.90 and 3.3.90. However on 3.3.90 the complaint is that the machine was not working. The report is "Pump wire earth, set-right wooden stand removed". It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that the "noise" in the machine was because it had been placed on the wooden stand. After the wooden stand was removed, it was not reported by respondent No. 1 whether the washing machine made any noise. In the complaint, as already mentioned, it has not been stated what type of trouble the machine was giving. The facts stated in the job card have not been proved to be wrong. In these circumstances it can not be held that there is any manufacturing defect in the machine. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the appellant is liable to refund the price. However, the fact that the complainant made several complaints that the machine was making a noise when operated, can not be ignored. It is possible that the machine had not been serviced after 3.3.90 when the mechanic of the appellant visited respondent No. l''s house last. Therefore, we deem it proper that the appellant and the manufacturer shall provide free service of the washing machine for a period of six months arid extend the warranty period for a period of one year from the date of the order. With the above observations the appeal is accepted and the order of the District Forum is set-aside. The appellant is directed to service the washing machine free of charge for a period of six months and extend the warranty period for a period of one year, from the date of this order with no orders as to costs. Appeal accepted. _____________