STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 422 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 18.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 11.02.2013 |
M/s Whirlpool of India Limited, Corporate Office, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon, through M/s Whirlpool of India Limited, SCO No.910, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.
……Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.
VERSUS
Sh. Ashwani Dhingra R/o #2407, BSNL Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.
....Respondent/Complainant.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.10.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it allowed the complaint of the complainant, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under: -
“10. In the light of above observations, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties in not paying heed to the request of the Complainant to repair or replace the defective washing machine amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed, to:-
[a] To refund the amount of Rs.27,000/-charged for the faulty washing machine.
[b] To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental harassment to the Complainant;
[c] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;
11. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of para 10 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of the present complaint i.e. 03.11.2011, till it is paid. The Opposite Parties are directed to collect the washing machine from the Complainant, at their own cost”.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased a Whirlpool Washing Machine (Model Bloom Wash 360) on 6.8.2011, from Opposite Party No.1 (Harjas Enterprises), in exchange of his old Washing Machine, by paying Rs.24,000/- plus Rs.2,775/- for accessories, vide bills (Annexure A-1 & A-2). It was stated that, at the time of purchase of the said Washing Machine, the sales team of the Opposite Parties, informed that the machine worked fully automatic, as also manually. It was further stated that while using the said machine, the Complainant found some technical and programming faults, and lodged complaints on 3.9.2011, 6.9.2011 and 7.9.2011 respectively, with the service centre of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the service team of the Opposite Parties, never visited the Complainant and was also unable to give any satisfactory reply to his queries over the phone. It was further stated that during conversation, the Complainant came to know that this model of the Washing Machine was recently launched and, hence the staff of the Opposite Parties did not possess adequate knowledge relating to the said product. It was further stated that the Washing Machine, on wash mode used to take 23 minutes, to soak the clothes, and, even if, the machine was programmed to different timings, it again reverted back to the same 23 minutes time period without completing the previous timings as programmed. It was further stated that due to this, the Machine invariably added to the Soak time period, whereas, according to the user manual (Annexure A-3), while selecting the soak mode, the inbuilt soak duration, in the washing cycle would be skipped; whereas, the washing machine, in question, was not skipping this duration, rather added the same to the pre-programmed time of 23 minutes. It was further stated that there was an unnecessary wastage of time, energy and water, resulting into reducing the life of the clothes. It was further stated that the heating system of the Washing Machine was not working and the rat mesh was also not available. It was further stated that after washing and draining the water, the option of “rinse” the water tank of the machine automatically got filled up even if a small cloth was left in the Machine. It was further stated that gap in the body and tub was wide resulting into small clothes getting stuck causing the Machine to stop. It was further stated that the programming of the washing cycle was too long, and the manual mode of the Machine automatically fixed its time, not allowing to enter the time as per need etc. It was further stated that the Complainant also wrote a registered letter to Opposite Party No.2, which was never replied. It was further stated that a legal notice was also served, through registered post, upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.26,775/- the invoice price of the Washing Machine plus accessories, alongwith Rs.3,000/- adjusted on account of old washing machine, alongwith interest @18% P.A., pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, was filed.
3. Despite service of notice upon Opposite Party No.1, nobody appeared, on its behalf, before the District Forum, and accordingly, it was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 26.12.2011.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, admitted the factum of being the manufacturer of the Washing Machine, in question. It was stated that the dealer (Opposite Party No.1), which worked as an independent contractor, had demonstrated the working of the product, at the time of its sale and a manual detailing all its features and functions, was also supplied to the complainant. It was further stated that the Washing Machine was having both the features of fully, as well as semi automatic Machine. It was further stated that in response to the first complaint registered on 3.9.2011, the Complainant was advised about the usage of time, and the functioning of the Machine was also explained completely. It was further stated that responding to the subsequent complaints dated 6.9.2011 and 7.9.2011, regarding non-washing of clothes, within the programmed time, the complainant was again explained the timings, as per the manual. It was further stated that, as regards the problem, with soak option of the washing machine, while this option was used by pressing the button, the machine allowed the clothes to soak for a certain period of time, depending on the washing option programmed, whereas, when no soak option was selected, the Machine allowed to soak the clothes in a pre-programmed time. It was further stated that this feature was similar to all other Washing Machines and it was for the Complainant to compare the same before purchasing the same It was further stated that the Complainant did not register any problem regarding heating system and the Opposite Party was still ready to address and rectify any defect. It was further stated that the rat mesh was to be provided by the Dealer (Opposite Party No.1) and not by the answering Opposite Party. It was further stated that when double rinse option was selected, the water once drained, would again rinse the clothes. It was further stated that the washing machine, in question, was having a specific programme for light wash, and it was fully automatic with various washing options. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, vide the impugned order, in the manner, referred to above, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 (manufacturer), has filed the instant appeal.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. Before going into the merits of the case, we wish to decide the application, moved by the applicant/appellant, seeking permission to place on record, copies of job sheets (Annexure A-3), by way of additional evidence, which according to the applicant/appellant, are essential for the just decision of the case.
10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/ complainant opposed the application, on the ground, that the documents sought to be placed, on record, could not be admitted, into evidence, at the appellate stage.
11. From perusal of these documents, it is apparent that the same were in possession of the applicant/appellant, during the pendency of the complaint, before the District Forum. However, the Counsel for the applicant/appellant, has not been able to show any plausible reason, as to why, these documents, were not placed before the District Forum. Therefore, the same can not be admitted into evidence, now at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the application, for additional evidence, is dismissed.
12. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, submitted that all details regarding soaking were mentioned in the user manual (Annexure A-2) and that the time taken for inbuilt soak, was also mentioned, with each wash option. She further submitted that, as per the user manual, if optional soak was selected, by the consumer, then the inbuilt soak during wash cycle, would be skipped. She further submitted that the District Forum, by ignoring the foot note of the user manual, which was to be read, in conjunction with the user manual itself, wrongly allowed the complaint. She further submitted that a conjoint reading of all the contents of the user manual, including the foot note, clarifies that where the optional soak was selected by the user, the display on the Machine would show the complete time for the soak and not separately for in built and optional soak. She further submitted that due to these reasons, the word “skipped” was used, which does not mean that when optional soak was selected, then inbuilt soak time would be skipped. She further submitted that in all the automatic Washing Machines, the inbuilt soak was an essential feature. She further submitted that the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, allowing the complaint, being illegal, is liable to set aside.
13. On the contrary, the Counsel for the respondent/ complainant submitted that if this was a fact, that in all Washing Machines, inbuilt soak was an essential feature and inbuilt soak time would not be skipped, then, why it was mentioned in the footnote that the inbuilt soak during wash cycle would be skipped, if consumer selected optional soak and the remaining cycle time shown on display would get adjusted accordingly. He further submitted that this foot note is contrary to the essential feature of the Machine and, therefore, it is established that the Opposite Parties, misrepresented, which was an act of unfair trade practice on their part. He further submitted that the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, being well reasoned is liable to be upheld.
14. Admittedly, when, in all the Washing Machines, inbuilt soak was an essential feature, and inbuilt time would not be skipped, then why in the footnote of the user manual (Annexure A-3), it was mentioned that, if the consumer selected the optional soak, inbuilt soak during wash cycle, would be skipped, and, the remaining cycle time, shown on the display, would get adjusted, accordingly. As this footnote was in total contradiction to the salient/basic features of the Washing Machine, in question, therefore, it is established that there was misrepresentation, on the part of the Opposite Parties, which were, not only deficient, in rendering service, to the respondent/complainant, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum, while fairly appreciating these facts, rightly allowed the complaint of the respondent/ complainant, qua the Opposite Parties.
15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
16. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, is dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is upheld.
18. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
11th February, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.422 of 2012)
Argued by: Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.
Dated the 11th day of February, 2013.
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the application for adducing additional evidence, moved by the applicant/appellant, has been dismissed. Similarly, this appeal, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, has also been dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
