Haryana

Ambala

CC/468/2016

Baikunth Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Advance Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Baikunth Nath

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; AMBALA.

C.C.No.468 of 2016.

Date of Instt.:30.12.2016.

Date of Decision: 16.04.2018

Baikunth Nath son of Shri Lajja Ram resident of 20, Vikas Vihar, Ambala City.

                                                                             ..Complainant 

  Versus

1.Advance Electronics, 1083/84, Aloogodaom Ambala Cantt. through its proprietor.

2.L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Limited Plot No.15, Surjpur-Kasna Raod, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida-201805 through its MD/Chairman/Competent authority.

                                                                        ..Opposite parties.

              Complaint under Section 12 of CP Act

Before:                  SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

     SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                                MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:                 Complainant in person.

                             Sh.Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER

                              Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased a Semi Automatic Washing Machine Model WP25145-SD for personal use vide memo No.1084 dated 16.11.2010 for Rs.9300/- from Vishwe Electronics. The spin tub of the machine stopped working therefore; he lodged complaint duly transferred to Op No.1 who is service provider and on behalf of Op No.2.  Service Engineer Avtar Singh sent by Op No.1 inspected the washing machine on 30.09.2016 and fond spin lid of the machine required replacement but the requisite part was not available with Op No.1, therefore, same was ordered to Op No.2 and the complainant was asked to wait for a week or ten days for needful. Without carrying the repair, service charges to the tune of Rs.345/- were charged vide receipt No.1189 dated 30.09.2016. On 18.10.2016 again same service engineer visited with some identical part for replacement but the same was found to be fitment of some other product and was not matching with the machine owned by complainant.  The service engineer Avtar Singh refused to acknowledge in writing about non availability of part and refused to refund the money to the tune of Rs.345/- charged from complainant as service charges. The Ops did not take any step to redress the grievance of the complaint despite sending email dated 18.10.2016 to Op No.2 The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amount to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.

2.                On notice Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that LG electronics is a renowned company and is manufacturing electronic products for past several years and the technology used by it is world class. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs because the washing machine was repaired properly and the same was made in perfect working condition. The service engineer after inspection had found the spin tub of the washing machine in broken condition and the same was properly repaired and after that service charges to the tune of Rs.345/- were charged from the complainant. Objections about maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and concealment of material facts have been taken. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RA.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          The plea of the complainant is that without providing any service the service engineer had charged Rs.345/- wrongly and illegally and failed to return the same despite demand as the part to be fitted in the washing machine such as spin tub being replacement was not available with Ops. On the other hand, the Ops have come with the plea that the washing machine was repaired and after putting in working condition service charges to the tune of Rs.345/- were rightly charged by the service engineer.

                             It is established on the case file that an amount of Rs.345/- has been charged by the service engineer (Annexure C2) but in this very document it has been mentioned that Job is pending for want of availability of Spin Lead which is not available with service provider readily. The Ops have not denied that such document has not been issued by them. Rather they have come with the plea that amount of Rs.345/- were charged by the service engineer after getting the needful. It is strange that when the product which was to be replaced/fitted was not available with the service provider then as to how the OPs can charge from the customer without redressing his grievance. The complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint as well as affidavit that the service engineer had visited with some identical part for replacement but the same was found to be fitment of some other product and was not matching with the machine owned by complainant. This plea has not been rebutted by the opposite parties. The service card was issued by the OPs on 30.09.2016 and when the grievance of the complainant was not redressed then he sent an email dated 18.10.2016 followed by the present complaint. The OPs have even not bothered to reply the email sent by the complainant qua redressing his grievance which makes them deficient in providing service. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service as provided under Section 2 (1) (f) and (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduced as under:

(f) " defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or  under any contract, express or implied or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;

 

(g) " deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

 

                    Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case this Forum has in a firm view that the present complaint deserves acceptance because the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant as discussed above. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with costs which is assessed at Rs.3,000/- and OPs are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:

1. To pay Rs.345/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of receiving of payment till its realization.

 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 16.04.2018                                                             

                                                                                                  

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (D.N.ARORA)    

           MEMBER                               MEMBER                           PRESIDENT