DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.311 of 2018
Date of institution: 15.03.2018 Date of decision : 14.05.2019
Gurmeet Singh son of Shri Gurcharan Singh, resident of village Badali, District Ropar, Punjab.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Baweja Bartan Store, Main Bazar, Kurali, through its Proprietor Shri Charanjit Singh (Channi).
2. Onida Customer Relation Centre, Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Onida House-II, Mukund Ground Floor, Mahal Industrial Estate, Off. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India 400093.
3. Ondia MIRC Electronics Ltd. Onida House, G-1, MIDC Mahakali Caves Rd., Andheri (East), Mumbai (India) 400093
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OP No.1 ex-parte.
Shri Shivam Grover, counsel for OP No.2 and 3.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased Onida Microwave through invoice dated 16.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.6,000/- from OP No.1. However, in November 2017 this product started giving trouble because it stopped functioning properly. Even sound used to be emitted from this Microwave. As the Microwave was under warranty period and as such complainant approached OP No.1 for redressal of grievance. OP No.1 called upon complainant to approach OP No.2 i.e. customer care centre and accordingly complainant contacted OP No.2. After lodging of online complaint No.1711H876380026, two persons visited house of complainant, who after checking, made efforts for rectifying the defect, but could not succeed. While leaving house of complainant, those persons disclosed as if one part is required to be replaced and replacement will be done within one month. After elapse of said period of one month, complainant tried his best to contact concerned persons, but each time complainant was disclosed that the required part is not available. After waiting for two months, complainant again lodged online complaint No.1801H876380037 dated 16.01.2018, but despite that no one visited house of complainant and nor any reply received. OPs are not bothering to attend to the complaints even and that is why by pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs and by pleading that complainant suffered lot of mental harassment and agony, this complaint filed for seeking refund of price of the Microwave or replacement of the defective piece with new one. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more claimed.
2. OP No.1 is ex-parte in this case. OP No.2 and 3 filed joint reply for claiming that complaint does not disclose any deficiency in service or irresponsible act of OPs and as such complaint deserves dismissal, more so when OPs always have maintained high standard of professional conduct in manufacturing the products. Complainant has not produced even single evidence on record for proving and corroborating that the Microwave in question is damaged or defective one. Detailed evidence required and as such complainant should resort to remedy by way of approach to civil court of competent jurisdiction. Suppression of material facts by complainant even pleaded. No cause of action has accrued in favour of complainant for filing this complaint. Moreover, the complaint alleged to be filed by way of abusing process of law. Complainant alleged to be estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint, more so when complaint does not qualify the ingredients of Section 2 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Purchase of Microwave in question by complainant by paying price not denied. However, it is claimed that on lodging of online complaint by complainant, authorised representative alongwith technician visited house of complainant, who checked the Microwave. Minor adjustment was to be done in the Mica Sheet and the same was done by answering OPs, free of cost. Problem was resolved and thereafter complainant was satisfied. There is no serious problem and that is why no job order was prepared. It is claimed that authorised representative, being the service head again visited house of complainant in the company of a technician and on checking the Microwave, it was found that the same was working properly. Complainant was unable to explain the grievance. By denying other averments of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith Ex.C-1 and then closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 of Shri Dev Singh, authorised representative alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and then closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of complainant and counsel for OP No.2 and 3 heard and records gone through.
5. Ex.OP-1 is authority letter issued in favour of Dev Singh, authorised representative, whose affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 has been tendered in evidence. It is the case of complainant put forth through complaint and the submitted affidavit that he lodged two complaints online i.e. one in November 2017 and 2nd on 16.01.2018, but despite that the part required to be replaced has not been replaced, despite wait for sufficient time. However, it is the case of OP No.2 and 3 put forth through written reply and submitted affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 that on lodging of first complaint, job sheet was not prepared because after doing minor adjustment of Mica Sheet, the Microwave became free from defect. Non preparation of job sheet in this respect does show that the plea taken by OP No.2 and 3 may not be correct because it is well settled that as and when a company of repute provides services to its customers through customer care or service centre, then job sheet is always prepared. If adjustment of Mica Sheet was done as claimed in the written reply or in the submitted affidavit of authorised representative of OP No.2 and 3, then reference of the same must have been made in job sheet Ex.OP-2/2, but reference of the same is not at all made in Ex.OP-2/2. That also exposes falsity of claim of OP No.2 and 3.
6. Though it is the case of OP No.2 and 3 that technician and their authorised representative visited house of complainant twice i.e. first for doing minor adjustment of Mica Sheet and for the second time for finding that Microwave working properly, but the job sheet Ex.OP-2/2 produced by OP No.2 and 3 establishes that registration of first complaint was done on 18.11.2017 and the same was attended on 12.01.2018. So non attending of complaint for more than two months itself is an act of deficiency in service on part of OP No.2 and 3 because a person purchasing Microwave expects removal of defects at earliest, say within 15 to 20 days. So in such circumstances plea taken in the complaint and the supporting affidavit is correct that complaint of complainant was not attended for three months.
7. In the job sheet Ex.OP-2/2 it is mentioned that the selected action taken was of rewiring and repair. No mention of adjustment of Mica Sheet made in Ex.OP-2/2 and likewise no reference of rewiring made in the written statement or submitted affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 of authorised representative of OP No.2 and 3. That shows that the pleas taken in the written reply or in the submitted affidavit are not correct that complaints were attended twice. No explanation offered as to why first complaint kept pending for about three months after registration of same on 18.11.2017 and as such plea taken by complainant is correct that virtually defects in the Microwave in question have not been rectified till date.
8. Counsel for OP No.2 and 3 contends in course of arguments that OPs still ready to check the Microwave. Mere checking of Microwave not enough because if at all the defects are there in the Microwave, then those must be removed for making the same functional; otherwise the purchased product by complainant will be of no utility for him. It is not disputed in course of arguments that warranty period of the product is one year and if that be the position then on account of lodging online complaint in November, 2017 and 16.01.2018, complainant contemplated to avail services of OP No.2 and 3 within warranty period. As complainant has given specific numbers of complaints and as such case of complainant cannot be dis-believable that he lodged complaints twice. If contents of job sheet Ex.OP-2/2 taken into consideration that repair was carried on the alleged date of 12.01.2018, then this means that the second complaint lodged by complainant on 16.01.2018 was not attended by OPs. That also is an act of deficiency in service on part of OPs and as such complainant entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment from OP No.2 and 3, who remained deficient in providing services of removal of defects, free of cost, within warranty period. As there is nothing in invoice Ex.C-1 to show that warranty to be provided by manufacturer and service centre only and as such OP No.1, being seller cannot escape from liability of paying compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith remaining OPs, but of course liability of removing the defects will remain of OP No.2 and 3 only. As OPs have taken false pleas, as discussed above, and as such for ensuring that complainant not harassed further, it will be fit and appropriate to fix the specific period within which defects in the Microwave should be removed for making the same functional and also for payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses with rider that in case amount of compensation and litigation expenses not paid within fixed period, then complainant will be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on these amounts from today till payment. Imposition of such condition essential for checking that OP No.2 and 3 does not harass complainant again.
9. No other worth mentioning point argued.
10. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OP No.2 and 3 to make the Microwave in question fully functional after removal of all defects, free of cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.4,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.1 to 3. Liability to pay these amounts held as joint and several. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on these amounts from today till payment. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
May 14, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
