Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 189
Instituted on : 18.04.2019
Decided on : 26.04.2024.
Deepak age 35 years son of Kali Ram resident of H.No.1496/31, Kamla Nagar, Rohtak.
..............Complainant.
Vs.
- Anand Electronics, 14, Palika Bazar, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Videocon Industries Ltd., 14Kms. Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road, Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan, Distt. Aurangabad-431105(India) through its Incharge.
- Videocon Industries Ltd., Plot No.296, UdyogVihar, Phase-2, Gurgaon-122015 through its Incharge.
……….opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.V.S.Singhal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.IshantKhanagwal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
Opposite party No.3 given up.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are thathe had purchased a Videocon washing machine Model: DIGI ONE for Rs.20550/-on 29.06.2017 from the opposite party No.1. At the time of purchasing the said washing machine, the opposite party No.1 had assured the complainant that in case of any default in the machine during two years, the same will be replaced free of cost or repaired. The complainant faced the problem in the alleged machine in the last week of November 2018 and he contacted the opposite parties. Opposite parties sent the engineer, who visited the house of complainant in the first week of December 2018 and found that there was problem in the PCB of the washing machine. The engineer of the opposite parties took the washing machine for repair and gave complaint no.GUR2512180048 to the complainant and also assured that the washing machine would be repaired at the earliest. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, the washing machine is not repaired by the opposite parties and the same is in the possession of opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the said washing machine with new one or to return the cost of washing machine i.e. Rs.20500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 was received back with the report of refusal. Hence the opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.09.2022 of this Commission. Opposite party No.3 was given up by the complainant vide his separately recorded statement dated 06.09.2022.Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not impleaded the Videocon authorized service center, Rohtak as respondent, which is a necessary party, thus the present complaint may kindly be dismissed on this sole ground. On merits, it is submitted that the opposite party was only the dealer of Videocon products and as per policy of the company, opposite party provided only warranty of 2 + 8 years over the product in question which is to be given by the authorized service center of Videocon products or by the manufacturer of Videocon products. It is further submitted that till date complainant has not approached the opposite party regarding the alleged defect in the product in question. It is denied that product in question is in possession of opposite party. It is further submitted that providing after sale service to it s customers is prerogative of authorized service center or the manufacturer. The opposite party should not be held liable for the deficiency in service on the part of service center or manufacturer. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex C1 and closed his evidence on dated 04.05.2023. On the other hand , opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 23.01.2024.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present complaint complainant had purchased the product on 29.06.2017 for Rs.20500/- with 2+8 years warranty as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. At the time of arguments, complainant has submitted that one person namely Manoj came to check the washing machine but he could not repair the same. The mobile number of Manoj is mentioned overleaf Ex.C1 and some complaint numbers are also mentioned on this document which shows that they repeatedly tried to repair the washing machine but failed to repair the same. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and opposite party no. 2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of washing machine after deducting the 25% depreciation on it, i.e. to pay Rs.15375/-(Rupees 20500/- less Rs.5125/-).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.15375/-(Rupees fifteen thousand three hundred and seventy five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.04.2019 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expensesto the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.04.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
