Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/214/2015

Randhir Singh Chauhan S/o Udaivir Singh Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aarti Agerncies - Opp.Party(s)

Raman Singh Chauhan

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.  214 of  2015.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 26.06.2015.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 28.11.2016.

Randhir Singh Chauhan aged about 45 years son of late Udaivir Singh Chauhan, resident of village Khanpur, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Aarti Agencies Opposite Shivji Market, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar through its partner/Proprietor.
2. Whirlpool India Limited, Head Office, Plot No.40, Sector-44, Gurgaon, 122002 (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Chairman.

                                                                                                                                   …Respondents.  

                       

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.            

 

Present: Sh. Raman Singh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. V.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for  respondent No.2.  

               Respondent No.1 already ex-parte.               

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Randhir Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents     (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective washing machine with new one and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant purchased a washing machine make whirlpool from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 26200/- vide invoice No. 6577 dated 29.12.2013 manufactured by OP No.2.  The said washing machine is fully automatic and at the time of its purchase, it was assured by OP No.1 that the said washing machine is one of the best product in the market and has 2 years warranty. Since the very beginning, the said washing machine started giving problem as its sensor stop working and the water started overflowing from the machine. Moreover, the time of the washing machine was also not working properly. The said defect wasduly reported to the OP No.1 upon which earlier in the month of March 2014, the OP No.1 sent its engineers who tried to remove the defect from the machine in question but of no use. The complainant made so many representations in writing as well as through emails or complaints No. HR031500061 and HR0115003350 but the OPs failed to resolve the grievances of the complainant. As such, the OPs had sold a defective machine to the complainant with false assurance and in this way the complainant gained wrongfully from the complainant by selling a defective washing machine. Hence, this complaint.   

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.08.2015. OP No.2 appeared through Sh. V.K. Sharma, Advocate and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; present complaint is false, frivolous and devoid of any merits; complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum as the present complaint is absolutely mum about the sincere efforts put by the OPNo.2. It has been further submitted that the complainant purchased the said washing machine on 29.12.2013 with two years warranty. The washing machine is still under warranty. The earlier concerns of complainant regarding the working of washing machine was properly attended by the engineers of authorized service station of Op No.2 but when complainant registered last complaint No. HR0615000358 in the month of June, he himself refused to get the washing machine repaired, if there is any fault at all. The request of complainant to replace the washing machine with new one and damages is not proper and justified. the complainant has no legitimated ground for replacement of the washing machine as prayer in the relief claim. It is not the case of the complainant that the washing machine is having any irreparable or manufacturing defects and required replacement only. The complainant has not filed nay documentary evidence or report of an expert from the approved laboratory in support of his allegation in the complaint regarding cause of defect in the washing machine. In the absence of authentic report, the allegation of the complainant are baseless and request of the complainant to replace the complete washing machine is liable to be rejected and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Invoice No. 6577 dated 29.12.2013 as Annexure C-1,  Photo copy of e-mail dated 18.06.2016  alongwith reply as Annexure C-2  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Mujeeb Ur. Rehman, Branch Service Manager as Annexure RW.2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for the OP No.2 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.

8                      It is admitted case of the OPs that complainant had purchased a washing machine make Whirlpool from the OP No.1 against a sum of Rs. 26,200/- vide Bill No. 6577 dated 29.12.2013. The only grievances of the complainant is that from the very beginning the said washing machine started giving problem, as its sensor stopped working and water started overflowing from the machine. Moreover, the timer of the washing machine also not working properly. The said defects were brought into the notice of the OPs so many times through e-mails or complaints on toll free number but despite that the technician/engineers of the OPs could not remove the defects from the washing machine in question. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attentions towards the e-mails (Annexure C-2) vide which the complainant firstly made the e-mail on 09.02.2015 in which the complainant specifically mentioned that “ Even after your assurance and commitment no one from your service centre turned up for any repair. I waited for a long whole day after your commitment but to no avail”. After that, the complainant again sent e-mail on the same day in response to the e-mail received from the care manager Mr. Rohit Sharma mentioning therein that “ after your commitment of proper repair of washing machine with genuine repair, I got agreed for the same but  should be taken care as you committed. Extended warranty is acceptable but again I would say make it sure that machine be repaired so properly that it may not be needed in future”. Even prior to this, the complainant also made e-mail to Mr. Rohit Sharma, Care Manager North Consumer Service on 04.02.2015 and 02.05.2015. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the para No.5 of the complaint in which he has also disclosed two number of complaints i.e. HR03150061 and HR0115003350 etc. made by the complainant to the OPs.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 Sh. V.K.Sharma, argued at length that complainant has totally failed to prove his case as he has neither moved any application for appointment of local commissioner nor he has placed on file any expert/mechanic report in support of his case and in the absence of any expert/mechanic report it cannot be presumed that the washing machine in question was having any manufacturing defect and required replacement. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 further argued that as and when the complainant made the complaint, the same was attended by the Engineer/Mechanic of the OPs. The complainant registered his first complaint bearing No. HR0414007888 with the customer care of the OPs on 24.04.2014 only for water leakage in the washing machine in question, which was duly attended by the service engineer of the OP and was rectified by muck cleaning. After that complainant also lodged two complaints bearing No. HR03150061 and HR0115003350 on 01.03.2015 and 16.01.2015 respectively which were also properly attended and necessary repair was done. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as from the perusal of e-mails Annexure C-2 and complaint made on online by the complainant and further admission of the OPs in the reply that the washing machine in question was repaired 2-3 times after receiving the complaint of the complainant, meaning thereby that it is not disputed that the washing machine in question was having some defects due to which the complainant was forced to lodge the complaint with the OPs time and again. It is also not disputed that the washing machine in question became defective during the currency of warranty period. Although the complainant has neither moved any application for appointment of local commissioner nor has placed on file any mechanic/expert report in support of his version which is mandatory as per section 13(1)( C) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced here as under:

Where the complaint alleged a defect in case which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, will it and  authenticate it in the manner prescribed and referred the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test which ever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods supplier from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report it is finding thereon to the District Forum within a period of 45 days of the receipt of reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

            Even then, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get some relief as he has faced hardship as well as mental agony due to the defects in the washing machine in question so many times.

11                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops to put the washing machine in proper working order free of costs and further to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs. 2200/- as cost of proceedings. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 28.11.2016

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER