DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.268 of 11.7.2016

                                      Decided on:           10.1.2018

Gurvinder Singh son of Sh.Ravail Singh, Honour Shoes, Chick Bazar, Lahori Gate, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Amar Traders, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala through its Authorized Representative.

2.       Godrej Machines, Phase 8 Plot No.A-40 Ph VIII-A, Industrial Area, Mohali through its authorized representative

3.       Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. Appliance Division, Plant 11Pirojshanagar,Virkroli(W) Mumbai 400079.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                       

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Ravinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant.

                                      Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate, counsel for

                                      Opposite parties No2&3.                                    

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one washing machine (fully automatic) WM GDR FA 6.5KG 650 PF Red Grey SR 1306160163 from OP no.1 vide bill No.R.1783 for a sum of Rs.20,400/  on 22.8.2014. The said machine was under two years warranty. It is averred that the said washing machine worked properly for one month only and after that it started creating trouble. The complainant lodged many complaints from time to time and the mechanic of the OPs used to come and tried to rectify the problem but the problem was not completely rectified. On 18.2.2016, the complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs but to no effect. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment, mental tension and inconvenience. The problem occurred in the washing machine during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986.
2. On notice, OP no.1 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. Whereas OPs No.2&3 appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. In their reply Ops have denied the fact that the washing machine in question started giving problem after one month. The complainant lodged complaints regarding minor defects to the service centre vide complaint No.977543 dated 28.10.2015, 81772 dated 21.11.2015, 987846 dated 1.1.2016, 994156 dated 17.2.2016 and the OPs rectified the minor defects free of cost. It is wrong that the defect could not be detected. As such OPs are not at all deficient in service. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. In support of his complaint, the ld.counsel for the complainant  has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1to C4 and closed the evidence.
4. The ld.counsel for OPs No.2&3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Charankamal Singh, Asstt. Tech, Manager of OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 & OP2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Ex.C2 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one washing machine from Op no.1 on 22.8.2014. It is alleged by the complainant that after one month of the said purchase, the washing machine started giving problem. Though the complainant has alleged that the washing machine started giving problem after one month but he has failed to produce on record any documentary evidence to show that there occurred some problem in the washing machine.Ex.C3 is the warranty card whereby the said machine was under two years warranty. Whereas the plea of the OPs is that the complainant approached the service centre with minor defects in the washing machine on 28.10.2015, 21.11.2015, 1.1.2016 and on 17.2.2016 and every time the defect was removed by the OP free of cost. OP has placed on record Ex.OP2, which shows that there were very minor defects in the washing machine and there was no major problem. Every time the OPs properly attended to the complaint of the complainant and rectified the problem.
7. Today during the course of arguments also, the ld. counsel for the OPs agreed that they are still ready to rectify the washing machine if there is any problem.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs No.2&3 to rectify the defect in the washing machine free of cost . OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/ as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 10.1.2018               

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER