DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 01 of 4.1.2017

                                      Decided on:   13.12.2017

Sumit Gupta S/o Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta R/o H.No.238, Opposite Taat Baba Ashram, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Bombay Crockeries , through its Prop. Chowk Arya Samaj, Patiala.

2.       Philips & Panasonic Service Center through its Manager C/o Parveen Kamboj #153, Ajit Nagar, Leela Bhawan, Patiala.

3.       Philips India Ltd. Fourth Floor, through its Manager Jewel Pawani Tower, 6-3-1109/1/P/103, Raj Bhawan Road, Nishant Bagh Colony, Somajiguda, Hyderbad, Telangana-500082.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                       Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                       

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Sukhjinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant.

                                      Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.

                                      Sh.N.K.Singla,Adv.counsel for OPs No.2&3.              

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one juicer/mixer having model No.HL7715/00 make Philips vide invoice No.2193 dated 21.10.2016 (Friday) for an amount of Rs.5000/- from Op no.1. After purchasing the product on 21.10.2016, when the complainant tried to use it on 22.10.2016,  he found that the lid of the product was defective and all the substance in it got spill out on the usage of the product and the complainant immediately informed Op no.1.The OPNo.1 told the complainant that he i.e. complainant did not know how to use it properly and also told the complainant to contact Op no.2 i.e. the service centre of the company and that the OP no.2 will give demo to use the product. The complainant made a telephonic call to Op no.2 many times but could not contact it. Thereafter he made a call on toll free number that was given on the warranty card i.e. 18001022929 but they also told the complainant to contact Op no.2 and also noted down the complaint of the complainant. On 25.10.2016, two service men from Op no.2 approached the complainant and gave demo of the product, but the same problem occurred at that time too. The service men told the complainant that this product has manufacturing defect and it will work properly after repairing the same. It is averred that as the complainant was unable to use the product even for a single day, he wanted replacement of the product, which Op no.2 refused to do. As such the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs and the above mentioned OPs amounted to unfair trade practice on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, representative of Op no.1 appeared but failed to file written version despite seeking many adjournments and ultimately it was proceeded against exparte. Whereas OPs No.2&3 appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the mixer grinder on 21.10.2016 and lodged a complaint on 23.10.2016. In the written version, it is submitted that on receiving the complaint, a technician of Op no.3 visited the house of the complainant and inspected the product. On inspection, it was found that the complainant was putting excess material in the jar than the recommended limit and due to which the material was spilling out of the jar. Hence, the technician suggested the complainant to put less material while processing any kind of food. It is further submitted that even the ASC Manager of the OP visited the complainant’s place and inspected the product and found that the product was technically Okay and further advised the complainant not to fill the jar full with material while processing any kind of food. As such OPs cannot be said to be deficiency in service. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.

The ld.counsel for OPs No.2&3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Anoop Singh Juneja, General Manager of Philips and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
5. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one mixer-grinder on 21.10.2016. Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 are the photographs of the mixer cum grinder, showing the material spilling out of the jar. Ex.C5 is the legal notice dated 26.10.2016.The OPs No.2&3 in its written version as well as affidavit have taken the plea that the material was spilling out of the jar only due to filling of excess material in the jar otherwise there was no defect in the product. The technician as well as ASC Manager of OP no.3 visited the complainant place and found that there was no technical defect in the product. Though the OPs have alleged that there was no technical defect in the product and the only reason for the material spilling out of the jar was excess filling of the material in the jar yet they have failed to place on record any corroborative piece of evidence to show that there was no technical defect in the mixer/grinder. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant. After spending a huge amount, the complainant was unable to use the product even for a single day. Failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the Ops to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs No.2&3 to refund an amount of Rs.5000/-(the same being the price of the product) to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses.Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:13.12.2017              

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER