Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 302
Instituted on : 21.06.2019
Decided on : 23.11.2022.
Parveen Kumar aged-42 years R/o 1004-A/19, Shakti Nagar, Green Road, Rohtak.
......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Bajaj Electricals Ltd., 45-47, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400023, through Its Managing Director and CEO (Being Manufacturer and Principal Seller)
- Shiv Surya Electricals, Sukhpura Chowk, Near Sadar Thana Rohtak through its Manager/Partner/Proprietor(authorized Service Center of Bajaj Electricals)
- Jagdamba Electricals, Sukhpura Chowk, Near Sadar Thana, Rohtak through its Manager/Partner/Proprietor.(Dealer of Bajaj Electricals)
...........…….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. Pardeep Goyat, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present complaint as per the complainant are that on 22.06.2017, he had purchased a Bajaj Steam Iron MXI bearing Serial No. C1510913 from the dealer of opposite party no. 1 for an amount of Rs.750/-. The steam iron purchased by the complainant was comprehensively warranted for a period of two years from the date of purchase and opposite party had undertaken to get the steam iron repaired or replaced free of charge directly or through authorized service providers. After lapse of one year the non stick coating of the steam iron started deteriorating and whenever the steam iron was used, it started sticking to clothes and thereby burning two trousers and one blanket of the complainant and leaving black marks on one shirt of the complainant leading to undue loss to complainant. Complainant contacted the dealer of the company for the rectification of the defect, who told him to go to authorized service center of the company. Then complainant went to authorized service center to complain about his problem but the service center did not give any satisfactory reply and asked him to leave the iron and to take it back after 7 days for making adjustment in the product. After lapse of two weeks the steam iron was returned to the complainant assuring that the defect has been rectified but complainant faced the same problem even after the repairing. Thereafter complainant contacted the service center many times to repair and rectify the defect under warranty but the service dealer did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Complainant also lodged a complaint on the toll free service number of the company vide complaint ticket number KUN1706190017699221 but even after that complaint was not resolved by the company. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the price of the product i.e. Rs. 750/- @ 24% per annum till the actual realization, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the burning of clothes, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that warranty card shown by the complainant to their technician clearly shows that the warranty card has been tempered with. A clear reading of the warranty card shows that the warranty card was initially stamped by Jagdamba Electronics and thereafter the complainant got the stamp of Amba Electronics on the same. The date section of the warranty card was also tempered by overwriting on the same. It is pertinent to mention here that no dealer/distributor will issue such kind of a warranty card to any customer and also no genuine customer will ever agree to receive such a tempered warranty card. The serial number of the product is also missing. The vendor code, month & year available on the product, the product seemed to be of 2013 and if that is the case then the warranty of the product has expired long back. It is further submitted that first and only call received by the opposite party no. 1 from the complainant was on 17th June 2019 which was cancelled with the remark “cutting on the warranty card in date of purchase”. This fact is available in the customer service track report maintained by opposite party no. 1. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no. 3 appeared and submitted in its reply that the manufacturer of the alleged product is opposite party no. 1 who provides the warranty through its own network and warranty services provider appointed by the opposite party no. 1 is opposite party no. 2 who has to provide the warranty services to the complainant. The answering opposite party is only the local dealer for facilitation of sales of the Bajaj Steam Iron of the concerned make and is not liable to provide any kind of warranty services, which has to be done by the opposite party no. 2 or by the opposite party no. 1 through its own independent channel. It is further submitted that answering opposite party had purchased the product sold from Amba Electricals Gohana Road, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak who was the dealer for facilitating sale of opposite party no. 1 cannot be held liable for any type of deficiency relating to services of the sold product, which has to be taken care of by opposite party no. 2 being warranty service provider or by the opposite party no. 1 being the manufacturer. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However opposite party No. 1 and 3 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.08.2022 of this Commission.
4. Notice issued to Opposite party no. 2 received back duly served but none has appeared on his behalf. As such, opposite party no. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.08.2019.
5. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3 and closed his evidence on dated 18.04.2022.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that the Iron in question was purchased by the complainant from Jagdamba Electricals i.e. opposite party No.3 which is proved from the bill Ex.C2 dated 22.06.2017. The grievance of the complainant is that the non stick coating of the steam iron started deteriorating within warranty period and whenever it was used, it started sticking to clothes and thereby burning two trousers and one blanket of the complainant and leaving black marks on one shirt of the complainant and has caused loss to complainant. To prove the same complainant has placed on record Call details Ex.C3 dated 17 June 2019, which shows that the alleged Iron was not working and the product is under warranty. But the same has not been repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period. On the other hand, contention of opposite party No.1 is that warranty card shown by the complainant was tempered with as it was initially stamped by Jagdamba Electronics and thereafter the complainant got the stamp of Amba Electronics on the same. On the other hand, it is admitted by the opposite party No.3 that the manufacturer of the alleged product is opposite party no. 1 who provides the warranty and the opposite party no.3 had purchased the product sold from Amba Electricals Gohana Road, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak who was the dealer for facilitating sale of opposite party no.1.
8. Hence from the alleged reply filed by the opposite party no.3 it is well proved that the alleged Iron was purchased by the opposite party no.3 from the Amba Electricals and further sold to the complainant and the manufacturer of the Iron is opposite party No.1. It is also observed that the Iron in question is not repaired by the opposite party No.1 & 2 during warranty period. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the cost of Iron i.e. Rs.750/-(Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present compliant i.e. 21.06.2019 till its realsiation, also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) on account of damages and Rs.4000/-(Rupee four thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complainant is also directed to hand over the Iron in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
10. 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:
23.11.2022.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
