Haryana

Ambala

CC/436/2017

Mr Ajay Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arvind Electricals - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Walia

18 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                       Complaint case no         : 436 of 2017

                                                       Date of Institution: 08.12.2017

                                                       Date of decision:18.12.2018

 

 

Sh. Ajay Gupta son of Sh. Veer Kumar, resident of Kothi No.458, Sector-8, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

…….Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.      Arvind Electronics & Electronics, Prem Nagar, Ambala City.

 

2.      IFB Industries Ltd., Plot No.640A, Phase XI, Mohali (Punjab).

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:       Sh. D.N. Arora, President.   

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.         

                    

 

Present:     Sh. Navneet Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP No. 1 ex parte v.o.d. 30.01.2018.

                   Sh. Naveen Chawla, counsel for the OP No. 2.

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a new washing machine make IFB Model 9.5kg SDG from OP No.1 vide bill no.2287 dated 16.6.2016 for Rs. 28,500/- with 2 years warranty. The new purchased machine never worked efficiently since date of its purchase by complainant and it caused a lot of harassment. The complainant sent various complaints through mail to the OP company  in this regard on dated 05.08.2016, 10.08.2016,17.08.2016, 11.04.2017, 13.04.2017 and lastly followed by 29.5.2017. But Ops never take any interest to rectify the defect occurred in said washing machine. On the complaint, the ticket no.1000169222 & 3000105175 was given to complainant on 15.6.2017 & 27.6.2017 respectively for said complaint by authorized service center of the company. But the Ops failed to provide best services to the complainant and failed to remove/repair the defect occurred in said new washing machine despite visit of technical person to the residence of complainant. It caused a great mental pain and harassment to them. Hence, the present complaint. 

2.                          Registered notice issued to Op No.1 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.01.2018. Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that on 15.06.2017 request was received from the complainant for checking of the appliance. On 15.06.2017 the technician visited to the house of the complainant. On inspection it was found that pump hose pipe (plastic pipe) was cut by the rat. The said pipe was thus replaced on free of costs basis. The appliance was demonstrated by the OP No.2 to the complainant in proper working condition. On 16.06.2017 the technician further visited to the house of the complainant and found that the appliance was working properly.  The OP No.2 has not received any of the complaint dated 27.06.2017 from the complainant. Neither there were any of the manufacturing defects in the appliance nor there repeated occurrence of the defects. The legal notice dated 22.07.2017 was received and its prompt reply dated 11.8.2017 was sent to the complainant’s counsel. The technician of the OP no.2 visited to the house of the complainant and inspected appliance on 18.08.2017. However, the complainant refused to inspect the appliance to the technician of the OP No.2 and/or to sign job card. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op no.2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.                         To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-10 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-7 and closed their evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                          The case of complainant is that he had purchased a Washing Machine, IFB, for a sum of Rs. 28,500/- on 16.06.2016 vide invoice No.2287 from OP No.1 with having two year warranty vide Annexure C-1. The complainant has alleged that the washing machine in question never worked efficiently since date of its purchase and having manufacturing defect and washing machine in question was neither washing the clothes and nor dry the same and then he approached to the Ops for rectification of said defects and send the various E-mails i.e on 05.08.2016, 10.08.2016 and 11.04.2017 as per Annexure C-3,C-4 respectively and he also sent the legal notice to the opposite parties and postal receipt is on file Annexure C-2 and C-6. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties has argued that after receiving the complaint they have rectify the problem occurred in the machine in question and defect has been rectified as per Annexure   R-2/2, R-2/3, R-2/4 and the complainant was satisfied with the performance of the opposite party and further argued that in view of the above rectification of the washing machine so the opposite parties are not negligent to perform their duty. But complainant was insisting to the Ops for refund the invoice amount. During the trial of the case opposite party No.2 moved an application for inspection of the washing machine and this Forum has allowed the application for inspection vide Order dated 06.03.2018 and Local Commission has inspected the washing machine in question and give the following report “ The inspection was carried out in the presence of both the parties on 13.04.2018 at 11:15 AM. The washing machine in question was run on smart mode but failed to complete the washing cycle and could not pump out the water from the machine when it was required in the process. Hence this machine is a defective piece” and opposite party also filed the objections on the LC report and they have prayed for cross-examination on the LC and same was allowed vide order dated 12.10.2018 and LC was cross-examined on 29.10.2018. In the cross-examination the LC has stated that I have not open the washing machine at any point of time hardware or software part was not opened and he further stated that software codes can only be operated by the company and pumping action itself operated by software. But, it is common knowledge that if any person start the machine for washing the cloth if machine failed to complete the washing cycle and could not pump out the water from the machine when it was required in the process meaning thereby machine in question is defective one and complainant deprived from enjoying the facility of new machine despite incurring huge expenses in comparative to other washing machine of company available in market and LC has also given the abovesaid opinion and corroborate the version of the complainant. Furthermore, it is admitted by the Ops in their written statement the defect had occurred during warranty period but the same was rectified which also established the contention of complainant.  

6.                          From the above mentioned facts, it is clearly established that the OPs are deficient in services and OP has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as per his satisfaction. Since, the washing machine in question become defected within warranty period i.e 24 months as per the warranty card Annexure C-2 and it is duty of the opposite party to rectify the problem with the satisfaction of the complainant. It is not a case of the OPs, the machine in question has not been used in accordance with manufacturers instruction given in the User Manual nor it is a case of the Ops defects has been caused by accident alteration, misuse, neglect, abuse, substitution of the original components with spurious/non genuine components. It is clear that machine in question still in a defected condition and failed to complete the washing cycle and could not pump out the water from the machine as per the LC report dated 13.04.2018. Therefore Ops have sold the defective machine to the complainant and it is clear cut case of the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has also come with this plea the due to supplying the defective machine by the Ops and he has to purchased new washing machine by incurring a sum of Rs.13,300/- as per invoice Annexure C-10 and he has prayed for refund of the cost of the product along with interest from the Ops. In view of the above discussion of the case present complaint liable to be accepted same is hereby allowed along with the costs which is assessed Rs.3,000/- and it is appropriate to give the direction to the Op to pay the invoice amount Rs. 28,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of the complaint till its realization subject to return the old washing machine alongwith accessories to the Ops by the complainant within 30 days after receiving of this order.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on :18.12.2018                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                     President

 

 

                   (DR.SUSHMA GARG)

                              Member