Haryana

Panchkula

CC/172/2021

CHANDRA KANT AGGARWAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMBIKA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV SHARMA

26 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	172 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	08.03.2021
Date of Decision	:	26.02.2024

 

 

 

Chandra Kant Aggarwal aged 51 years son of Shri Bal Krishan Aggarwal, resident of Village Dadhibhola Peer Sathan, Near Akash Hotel, Nalagarh, District Solan(HP)

 

                                                                ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     Ambika Enterprises, SCO No.42, Sector-11, Panchkula (Haryana) through its Authorised Signatory.

2.     LG India Limited, D-59, Site 4, Industrial Area, Kasna Surajpur, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201306 through its Director/ Managing Director/Authorised

                                                                                                                                                                                            ..….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.

                        Sh. Arjun Grover, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                        (OP No.2 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated                                        15.11.2021).

                       

                                        ORDER

 

(Satpal, President)

1.The brief facts, as alleged, in the present complaint are, that a LG Dishwasher DEB424FP APZPEIL alongwith hand blender Rotomix was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 vide invoice no.8573 dated 15.11.2020 amounting to Rs.51,500/-; at the time of purchase,  he was assured by OP No.1 that no problem would arise in the use of the dishwasher; the family of the complainant started using the said dishwasher with full care and precautions; however, after 15/20 days of using of the dishwasher, some amount of detergent on the brim of the water surface in a glass was noticed & in this regard, the OP No.1 was informed accordingly. Thereafter, the complaint was made on 05.01.2021 at the Call Centre of OP No.2. Some person from LG Company had come to the residence of the complainant on 06.01.2021 but he failed to rectify the defects of the dishwasher; thereafter, one engineer of the OP at higher level, namely, Sh.Vinod was contacted, who suggested the complainant to use the dishwasher on different modes and asked him to send the videos & pictures with detergent brim. Thereafter, said Sh. Vinod had sent another technician from Mohali but to no avail. A fresh complaint VIDE RNP210123086660 was lodged at the customer care. Thereafter, another technician had come, who had also operated the dishwasher using the same mode and sent the picture to the head of the team i.e. Sh.Amrinder(Head technician). It is stated that the complainant contacted the senior team, who informed him that the water hardness at the location of the complainant was too high and that was the reason for the problem. The complainant was advised to install a water softener at his expenses. It is stated that the act on the part of the OPs was not fair as the complainant had already informed the OP No.1 at the time of purchasing the dishwasher about the hardness of water but he was informed by the OP No.1 that no problem would arise in the use of dishwasher. It is averred that the OPs had kept the complainant in darkness. It is stated that the dishwasher was defective one as the technician sent by the Ops had failed to resolve the issue. Due to act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is estopped from filling the present complaint by his own acts and conduct; the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands as he has concealed the material facts; there is no manufacturing defect in the product as alleged. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased the dishwasher, manufactured by the OP No.2, for an amount of Rs.51,500/- from OP No.1(authorized dealer of OP No.2 Company) on 15.11.2020. It is submitted that the complainant had selected the model of the dishwasher himself after being satisfied qua its features. On 05.01.2021, the complainant contacted the OP No.2 for the first time vide job-sheet bearing no. RNP210105011040 regarding some issue in the product. In response, the OP Company immediately on 06.01.2021, deputed its service engineer to visit the place of the complainant in order to sort out the issue. On his visit, the service engineer found that the product was functioning properly. The service engineer had also explained the Modus Operandi/functioning of the product to the complainant; the service engineer also apprised the complainant that steel utensils would not get cleaned in turbo wash and the complainant was advised to use the long programme. The engineer also guided the complainant to remove large particles of food residues from utensils before starting the wash cycle and pre-rubbing was stated to be mandatory in respect of milk containing utensils. It is stated that the service engineer also guided the complainant to use water softener for better functioning as the water at the complainant’s place was hard; however, the complainant had refused to use the water softener. It is stated that the complainant on 23.01.2021, vide job-sheet bearing no.RNP21012308-6660, once again contacted the OP’s regarding quality of the product. In response, the OP’s Company again deputed its service engineer to facilitate the complainant. On his visit at the place of complainant, the service engineer once again diagnosed that the product was functioning perfectly; however, the complainant was adamant for the replacement. The complainant has failed to demonstrate in the complaint as to how there is a manufacturing defect in product and as to how the act(s) of the OPs amounts to the  alleged deficiency of the service or unfair trade practice, as the OP No.1 has acted in a bonafide manner. The OP-company i.e. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. is a company of international repute and practices highly ethical policies. The product in question is required to be sent to the laboratory for expert opinion as the complainant without any cogent evidence has made averment that the product was having manufacturing defect, which the OP’s vehemently denies.

                On merits, the pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP No.2; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.2, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 15.11.2021.

3.To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the OPs No.1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1/A along with documents as Annexure R-1/1 to R-1/4 and closed the evidence.   

                During arguments, the complainant has placed on record the some photos of utensils, after washing of the same by dishwasher in order to show the stains on the same and the same are taken on record as Mark ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’.

4.We have heard learned counsels for the complainant and the OPs No.1 & 2 gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2, carefully and minutely.

5.The grievances of the complainant are with regard to the functioning/working of the dishwasher in question, while washing the utensils by the use of it. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended that the utensils are not being cleaned properly by the use of dishwasher in question. It is contended that the service engineer as deputed by the Ops to look into the grievances of the complainant had advised the complainant to use the water softener, whereas he was not so advised prior to the sale of the dishwasher to him by OP No.1 and thus, prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the present complaint.

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 has controverted the allegations as levelled by the complainant qua the functioning of the dishwasher in question and reiterated the averments as made in the written statement filed on behalf of the OP No.1 as also in the affidavit(Annexure R-1/A) and contended that no residue of the detergent as alleged by the complainant was found left after the washing of the utensils. The learned counsel, placing reliance upon the Op’s engineer report dated 10.09.2023 argued that no defect was found by the technical person in the washing of the utensils by the dishwasher. It is contended that the bubbles were noticed on the utensils  after washing by the dishwasher because of the hardness of water and not because of detergent and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

7.Admittedly, the stains have been found left on the utensils after the washing of the same by the dishwasher in question. As per Op’s version, based on their engineer report dated 10.09.2023, the stains have been found left because of hardness of water and not because of any residues of detergent. The version of the ops denying any deficiency and unfair trade practice on their part is not tenable because in para no.7 of the complaint, there was specific and categorical averments that OP No.1 was duly apprised qua the hardness of the water at the place of the complainant but he(the complainant) was assured that there would arise no problem in the use of dishwasher. The said specific averments has not been denied by the OPs in the corresponding para of the written statement. The Ops have found fault with the complainant qua the mode of the using of the dishwasher and in this regard, the OPs have taken the following pleas:-

1. That the complainant was advised and guided by the engineers during their visit that steel utensils would not get cleaned in Turbo wash and in this regard, he was advised to use the long programme.
2. The complainant was advised to remove the large particles of food residue from the utensils before starting the washing cycle.  
3. The engineer also apprised the complainant that pre rubbing was mandatory in respect of Milk containing utensils.

8.The aforesaid pleas taken by the OPs carry no merits because it is not the grievances of the complainant that any residue of food particles are left on the utensils are washing of the same by Dish- washer. It is also pertinent to mention here that the advice and guidance allegedly given by the engineers of OPs during their visit to the residence of the complainant, was not given prior to the sale of the product to him. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the OPs that suitable instructions qua the usage of the dishwasher by its customers including the complainant were given by them prior to/or at the time of the sale of the product. Moreover, the complainant was not informed, prior to the sale of the product in question to him, that the said dishwasher was not workable in the regions, having high level of hardness of the water. Further, the complainant was not informed prior to the sale of dishwasher to him that a water softener would be required by him in order to have proper cleaning of utensils. Therefore, no merits are found in the contentions of the OPs; hence, the same are being rejected being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

9.Resultantly, the OPs No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, are held liable to compensate the complainant on account of deficiency on their part.

10.In relief, the complainant has prayed for the replacement of the defective dish-washer with new one along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.22,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation chargers respectively. In our considered opinion, it would be just and proper to direct the OPs to refund the purchase price of dish-washer in question i.e. Rs.51,500/-.

11.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to refund the sum of Rs.51,500/- i.e. purchase price of dish-washer, to the complainant along with  interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 15.11.2020 i.e. the purchase date of dish-washer till its realization subject to return the dishwasher by the complainant to the Ops.
2. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay the compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. The OPs No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant on account of litigation charges.

 

 12.The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:26.02.2024

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg         Satpal

                    Member                     Member                President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                                 Satpal

                                                President

 

 

C.C. No. 172 of 2021

 

Present:             Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.

                        Sh. Arjun Grover, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                        (OP No.2 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated                                        15.11.2021).

 

 

                        Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 26.02.2024 for orders.

Dated:12.02.2024

 

 

 

Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav        Dr.Sushma Garg           Satpal

              Member                           Member                         President

 

 

 

Present:             Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.

                        Sh. Arjun Grover, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                        (OP No.2 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated                                        15.11.2021).

                                       

 

                                 Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against the OPs No.1 & 2 with costs.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt. 26.02.2024

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav        Dr.Sushma Garg            Satpal

              Member                          Member                          President