Haryana

Ambala

CC/327/2018

Rakesh Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Alankar - Opp.Party(s)

In person

17 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 327 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :   03.10.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :   17.09.2019.

 

Rakesh Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Vir Bhan Sharma, r/o H.No.22, Jandli, Ambala City, District Ambala (Haryana).

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                             Versus

 

1. Alankar (An Exclusive Electronics Store), Main Road, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, through its Prop.
2. Rupin Trading Co. (Haier), Opp. Jindal Hospital

(Panasonic Electronic Service Centre), Near Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City, through its Service Manager.

3. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon (Gurugram) 122002, Haryana, through its M.D.

           ..…..Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   OP No.1 ex-parte.

                   None for the OP No.2.

Shri Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.13,700/- alongwith interest @18 p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint, till its realization OR provide new Washing Machine Upper grade.
2. To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Washing Machine bearing No.NA-W75H4HRB S.N:168DLSH00292 PANASONIC W/M from OP No.1 vide Bill No.F-44 dated 29.12.2016 after paying Rs.13,700/- with 10 years warranty/2 year guarantee. The said machine was used by his wife as per instructions. On 05.03.2017, when his wife was washing the clothes, then the timer of said washing machine stopped working and automatic start in opposite side. He contacted the OP No.1 and it sent authorized mechanic, who checked the timer and rectified the problem. After that in the month of June, 2018, the same problem occurred again and on his complaint, representative of service staff came and took away the machine with him and after repairing, returned the same on 01.07.2018. After 2-3 days, the said machine again started giving the same problem and on his complaint, service centre representative Mr. Sujiwan Gupta asked him to call him on his phone No.9812041465 instead of contacting the service centre directly. Thereafter, he complained to said Mr. Sujiwan Gupta as well as to the service centre, but all in vain and OPs refused to do anything by saying that it is a mechanical defect and could not be rectified. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice to OP No.1, none has turned up on its behalf, accordingly it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 22.11.2018.

                   Upon notice, initially an Authorized Rep. appeared on behalf of OP No.2, but he failed to file the written version despite availing various opportunities. Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed true and correct facts. As a matter of fact, the complainant raised issue and the technician visited his house and on careful checking of washing machine, it was found that it was not used as per the user manual and was mishandled. The technician again explained to the complainant and his wife how to operate the machine. The technician carried out services of the washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant as wash timer, spin tub, balancer and knob was replaced with new one. No defect of any kind was found as the machine was proper functioning. There was no manufacturing defect in it. There was no complaint received from the complainant on 05.03.2017 as alleged. The complainant raised the issue on 27.06.2018 and the washing machine was taken to the repair centre, but no defect was found in it and the same was delivered to the complainant on 01.07.2018. It is totally denied that the washing machine was given 10 years warrantee/2 years guarantee. The washing machine was having 10 years warranty on motor part of the machine and 2 years warranty on complete unit and no guarantee with respect to the terms and condition. The OP No.3 has not committed any deficiency in service, thus the complaint filed against it, deserves dismissal with costs.

3.                The complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. The OP No.2 has not filed any evidence despite availing various opportunities, as such, its evidence has been closed on 21.08.2019 by the order of this Forum. The learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Arjun Tanwar as Annexure OP3/A alongwith document as Annexure OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP No.3 and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased the washing machine in question from the OP No.1 vide bill dated 29.12.2016 (Annexure C-1). The complainant has argued that on 05.03.2017, the timer of said washing machine stopped working and on his complaint, authorized rep. of OP No.1 rectified the said problem. He further argued that in the month of June, 2018, the same problem occurred again and representative of service staff took away the machine with him and after repairing, returned the same on 01.07.2018. After 2-3 days, the same problem occurred again and he complained to Mr. Sujiwan Gupta as well as to the service centre, but they did not resolve his grievance. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.3 has argued that on receiving complaint, the technician visited the house of the complainant and on careful checking of washing machine, it was found that it was not used as per the user manual and was mishandled. The said technician explained to the complainant and his wife how to operate the machine. The technician carried out services of the washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant as wash timer, spin tub, balancer and knob was replaced with new one. No defect of any kind was found as the machine was proper functioning. There was no manufacturing defect in it. There is no dispute that the washing machine in question became defective twice i.e. on 05.03.2017 and thereafter in June 2018 and the service centre i.e. OP No.2 resolved the grievance of the complainant by repairing the same or replacing the defective parts. The main grievance of the complainant is that the washing machine again became defective and the OPs have not resolved his grievance till today. The OP No.3 has admitted in his written version that the washing machine was having 10 years warranty on motor part of the machine and 2 years warranty on complete unit. Since the complainant had purchased the washing machine in question on 29.12.2016, therefore, two years warranty period expires on 28.12.2018. As per the complainant, the washing machine became defective in the month of June 2018, meaning thereby, it was within two years warranty period at that time and the OPs were duty bound either to repair or to replace the same, but they did nothing. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the washing machine in question became defective within warranty period and the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, as such, they are deficient in providing the services to the complainant. 

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OPs. They are directed to comply with the following directions jointly and severally:-

1. To replace the defective washing machine in question with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant. If they are not in position to replace the washing machine of the same model, then refund the amount of Rs.13,700/-.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 17.09.2019.

 

 

 

 

     (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)              (Neena Sandhu)

      Member                           Member                      President