BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.79/14.

Date of instt.: 15.04.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 17.12.2014.

Mahender Singh son of Sh. Nafe Singh, r/o Village Kultaran, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Chaudhary Electronics, Shop No.5, Koel Complex Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

2. M/s. Godrej & Boyee Mfg. Co. Ltd., Godrej Bhawan, Shershah Suri Marg Okhla, New Delhi-25.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Balbir Bansal, Advocate for complainant.

                        Op No.1 already exparte.

Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Auth.Reprt. for the opposite party.No.2.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

         The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one washing machine of Godrej Company from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.9300/- vide bill No.3048 dt. 28.12.2012 against the warranty of two years.  It is alleged that the said washing machine was not working properly from the very beginning and it was having manufacturing defect.  It is further alleged that the said washing machine did not clean the clothes, breaks the hook of the clothes and also did not give whistle after completing the period given to the machine.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times for repair/replacement of said defective washing machine but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 30.05.2014.  Op No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the date of purchase of the washing machine is 28.12.2012 and the same was covered with a two year warranty on all the parts from the date of purchase; that no complaint noted by the customer in company and no visit to customer by their engineer; that after request from dealer, their engineer Kuldeep had visited to customer and found washing machine working O.K.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.      

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased one washing machine of Godrej Company from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.9300/- vide bill No.3048 dt. 28.12.2012 against the warranty of two years.  The said washing machine was not working properly from the very beginning.  The said washing machine did not clean the clothes, breaks the hook of the clothes and also did not give whistle after completing the period given to the machine.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that no complaint noted by the complainant in company and no visit was made to complainant by their engineer.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authorities reported as Shiv Parsad Paper Industries Vs. Senior Machinery Company, 2006(1) CLT page 527 (NC), wherein it has been held that An equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired and in the authority titled as Kamal Kishore Vs. Electronic Corporation of India, 2010 revision petition No.3092 (NC), wherein it has been held that In the absence of expert evidence, manufacturing defect cannot be proved and without an expert opinion, it cannot be ascertained that the unit acquires a manufacturing defect, complaint dismissed.  The said authorities are fully applicable to the present case because the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence which could prove that the said washing machine was having any manufacturing defect.  So, we are of the considered view that the said washing machine is repairable.   

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion as-well-as in the interest of justice, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to repair the washing machine and change the defective parts, if any, free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.17.12.2014.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.