Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/316/2023

DILSHER SINGH JANDIALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BOSCH LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV KANT GOEL

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/316/2023
Date of Institution	:	26.6.2023
Date of Decision	:	2/08/2024

 

Dilsher Singh Jandiala Son of Babu Singh Jandiala, resident of House No.5536, Maloya Colony, U.T., Chandigarh.

 

Versus

 

1. Bosch Limited having its registered office at Plot No. S.C.O 301, Sector 9 Urban Estate, Panchkula - 134 109. (through its Directors)

2. M/s Gupta Electronic Co. having registered office at SCO No. 1117, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. (through its Proprietor)

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Kant Goel, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for  OP No.1
	:	OP No.2 exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that on 3.10.2022  the complainant purchased a washing machine having model Bosch 9Kg/6.0Kg WNA 14408IN (hereinafter referred to be as subject machine) from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.59,000/- vide  tax invoice Annexure C-1.  The subject machine worked properly for a week and thereafter it started giving problem as the cloths were not being washed properly and stains were left on the clothes despite of the fact that in the beginning when the washing machine was purchased it was working properly and even all the clothes were  being washed properly.  The washing machine was also taking more than usual time to wash the clothes and  the main wash compartment/detergent tray of the subject machine was not working as the whole detergent powder remains in the detergent tray  even after completion of washing cycle of machine.. Aggrieved by this, the complainant contacted the Ops on their toll free number and the complaint of the complainant was registered. After receiving the complaint, the OPs sent their  technician who inspected the subject machine but was unable to find out  the defect in the subject machine. Thereafter the complainant again lodged  complaint with the OPs, who sent another technician to redress the grievance of the complainant  but the said technician again could not find out the defect in the subject machine but assured the complainant that they will raise the issue to higher authorities of the OPs.  The screenshots of the calls given by the complainant to the OPs is annexed as Annexure C-2 (colly)  whereas screen shots of messages are annexed as Annexure C-3(colly). The complainant repeatedly requested the Ops to remove the defect in the subject machine but with no result, owing to which the complainant  has suffered  mental and physical harassment apart of financial losses. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, cause of action. However, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the subject machine from the answering OP. It is alleged that in fact when the subject machine was installed in the house of the complainant, demo was given by the technician of the answering OP at that time and the copy of job card is annexed as Annexure B. Later the complainant again approached the service provider of OP No.1, with the complaint about the long duration of the washing and also about the detergent powder  which was left in the detergent tray after washing cycle. The  technician of the OP No.1 has visited  the premises of the  complainant and resolved  the complaint related to the subject machine.  The technician informed the complainant that the pump  drain of the subject machine was blocked due to which the filter needs to be removed and re-fixed again. In fact the said problem caused due to excessive use of detergent than the prescribed limit.  Copy of job card is annexed as Annexure C. When the complainant raised the issue in the month of December with the answering OP,   a technician of answering OP visited premises of the complainant and found the same problem and after removing filter, he refixed the same again and the problem was resolved. The copy of job card is annexed as Annexure D.  On 18.12.2022,  the service provider of OP No.1 again visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the subject machine and found that the subject machine was working fine as per the manufacturing standard. Any manufacturing defect in the subject product has been denied. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP No.2  was properly served and when OP No.2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 11.8.2023.
4. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim, put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their respective claims the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully..
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the complainant had purchased the subject machine from the OP No.2,  manufactured by OP No.1 and the subject machine  started giving problem shortly after its installation  in the house of the complainant and the OPs had sent their technician to remove the defect as is also evident from job cards Annexure C to D, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if   the subject machine is having  manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or if the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of OP No.1.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the complainant had purchased the subject machine from OP No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.59,000/-. Annexure C-2 indicates the details of  the calls made by complainant to the OPs for lodging the complaints on their toll free number.  Annexure C-3 (colly) is the photographs  of the subject machine showing the defect in the subject machine. Annexure C to D are the copies of job card which indicate that the technician of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant and the pump drain was found blocked and after removing filter the same was re-fixed.  From the job card one thing is clear that the  subject machine was  repeatedly giving problem time and again and despite of visit of technician of OPs on 2.12.2022  and 13.12.2022, the defect could not be permanently removed by the OPs as the complainant had thereafter again lodged complaint at the toll free number on 26.12.2022 and the OPs could not remove the defect till date which is suffice to assume that the defect in the subject machine is inherent manufacturing defect and non-repairable. Thus, the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service. Hence, the OPs are liable to refund the invoice price of the subject machine. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹59,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay lump-sum  amount of ₹7000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

5. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization.
6. After compliance of order by the OPs the complainant shall return the subject machine to the OPs and the OPs shall collect the same at their own risk and cost.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 2/08/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member