| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 179 of 13-7-2023 Decided on : 31-10-2023 Daljeet Singh @ Diljeet Singh aged about 63 years, S/o Sh.Hardev Singh, resident of Bathinda through his Special Attorney Gurjot Singh Advocate son of Sh.Daljeet Singh, resident of Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Frontline Sales, MCB-Z3/04574, Near Teenkoni, Adjoining Andhra Bank, G.T. Road, Bathinda through its Prop./Partner/Manager. IFB Service Centre, First Floor, Near Fast Express Courier, Santpur Road, Bathinda through its Authorized Representative. IFB Corporate Office, IFB Industries Ltd., 2, Plot NO.IND-5, Sector-1, East Kolkata, Kolkata-700107 through its MD/Chairman.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. R.L Mittal, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Gurjot Singh, Special Power of Attorney of the Complainant. For opposite parties : Opposite parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte. Sh.Chander Mohan, for OP No.3. ORDER R.L Mittal, President The complainant Daljeet Singh through Special Power of Attorney of Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Frontline Sales and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Washing Machine of IFB i.e. Top Load Washing Machine from the opposite party No.1 through Invoice No.2067 dated 6.3.2022 for Rs.34,300/- and at the time of purchase of the said Washing Machine, the opposite party No.1 had provided 4 years warranty of Washing Machine all parts and further the opposite party No.1 had proclaimed that the said machine is of best quality and there are no complaints from any corner regarding functioning of the machine and also assured the complainant for the best door services in case of any defect in the functioning of the machine during the warranty period with 10 years warranty of Motor. It is alleged that believing the assurances of the opposite parties, the complainant purchased the said washing machine but to the utter dismay and surprise of the complainant, the said washing machine started creating problem in functioning within a few days of its purchase. The washing machine was consuming the water beyond limits and was also consuming the electricity very excess and as such the complainant lodged the complaint with the opposite parties on 31.3.2022 and the opposite party No.2 provided formal service through their authorized service representative with an assurance that there will be no such complaint in future but the complaint remained continuous and as such the complainant through his son Gurjot Singh again lodged complaint on 13.4.2022 and on this, the service representative of the opposite partie No.2&3 proclaimed that there is some problem in the Electronic head of the washing machine and as such the same was replaced by the opposite parties free of cost and the opposite parties assured that there will be no problem in future. It is further alleged that even thereafter the problem remained continuous rather the washing machine also started making unnecessary sound/notice while being used and the son of complainant namely Gurjot Singh again lodged complaint with the opposite parties on 22.1.2023 and then on 30.1.2023 and after checking the washing machine, the concerned service representative told that the Shockers of the Machine are required to be changed and the complainant bonafidely gave consent for the same and the shockers were changed by the opposite parties with an assurance that there will be no problem in the functioning of the machine but the change of the shockers also did not solve the problem in the functioning of the machine and the problems of high consumption of water and electricity and the unnecessary noise remained continuous and the son of complainant again lodged complaints with the opposite parties on 7.3.2023 and thereafter the opposite parties started proclaiming that the Drum of the Machine is required to be changed and on this, the complainant and his son Gurjot Singh refused to give the consent for the change of the Drum as there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the washing machine as a result of which, the washing machine is not working properly from the very first day of its purchase. It is also alleged that thereafter Gurjot Singh son of complainant repeatedly lodged complaints with the opposite parties on 26.3.2023, 31.3.2023, 1.5.2023 and 6.5.2023 and requested the opposite parties to replace the said defective washing machine with new one and also sent e-mails and IFB replied to the son of complainant and apologized for the inconvenience and assured for the replacement of the washing machine but to no effect. It is added to note that son of the complainant received the phone call from Mob.No.7009215203 and the concerned person conducted the visit in the house of complainant and took the photographs of the washing machine from the mobile phone of the son of complainant and forwarded on his whatsapp and he assured the son of complainant to forward the complaint for the replacement but the opposite party No.2 intentionally processed the request of the complainant for replacement very late i.e. after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of purchase. The son of the complainant made repeated phone calls on the Mob.No.98726- 15557 to enquire about the status of the complaint regarding replacement but the concerned person never gave any satisfactory reply rather he always put the matter off under one or the other false pretext and on 10.6.2023, the son of complainant again made a phone call on Mob.No.8264702028 and one Mr.Hajeet Singh talked with the son of the complainant and he was taking U-turn on replacement and stated that 25% of the depreciation will be charged for the replacement of the washing machine although during the previous negotiations, the opposite parties never asked for any such depreciation charges till 10.6.2023 and further the complainant is not liable to pay any depreciation charges as there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine but the opposite parties have been intentionally delaying the matter by replacing/ changing the parts of the machine in order to cover the time of one year of guarantee/warranty. Gurjot Singh son of the complainant lastly sent the e-mail to the opposite parties on 10.06.2023 and requested to replace the said defective washing machine, without charging any depreciation charges or in alternative to refund the total amount to the complainant regarding the aforesaid washing machine but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the aforesaid defective Washing Machine with new one or in alternative to refund the amount of Rs.34,300/- to the complainant and Rs.70,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation besides financial losses. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 &2 As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complaint of the Complainant is not maintainable in the present form. The Complainant has not approached this Hon'ble District Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material facts in the complaint. The suppressed facts are given in this written statement. The present Complaint is liable to be dismissed, for being false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. It is submitted that the Complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the opposite party No.3, which is a company of long-standing high repute and as a ruse to extract money without just cause or valid reason. That without prejudice to the foregoing submission, it is respectfully submitted that the complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it is must for the Complainant to show that the relieves as contemplated under section 39 can be given for the defect in goods supplied or deficiency in service provided to the Complainant. In the present case, it is crystal clear that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the Answering opposite party. Hence, the instant complaint should be dismissed in limine. It has been pleaded that the Complainant had prayed for the refund of price, interest thereupon and compensation etc. The prayer of the complainant is beyond the warranty terms. While entertaining and adjudicating the present complaint under the provisions of time bound summary procedure, this Hon'ble District Commission is not vested with powers to go beyond the agreed terms and conditions accepted by the parties. The complainant has not suffered from any of the losses for which the complainant is praying for compensation and or mental agony etc. The appliance is being utilized by the complainant regularly from the date of purchase of the appliance. The limited warranty terms by the opposite party No.3 on the Washing Machine is appended with the written statement may be marked. The complainant has filed this baseless complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the appliance without having produced any expert opinion/documentary proof in the form of evidence to prove that the subject appliance suffers from the problems as alleged, or to establish any manufacturing defect in the appliance in question. That the section 38 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 states as "where the complaint alleges a defect in goods, which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Commission shall after obtaining a sample of the goods, send it to appropriate laboratory with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, with a view to find out whether such goods suffer from any defect, alleged in the complaint or from any other defect. The opposite party No.3, submits that the allegations of the complainant in respect of manufacturing defects in the appliance in absence of an expert report, miserably fails and the instant complaint deserves to be dismissed. The opposite party No.3, herein relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Dr. K. Kumar Advisor (engineering), Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Dr. A.S. Narayana Rao & Anr. [I (2010) CPJ 19 (NC)] for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of manufacturing defects in the appliance. Hence, this Hon'ble Commission, in absence of an expert report on behalf of the complainant, ought to have directed the complainant to produce an expert's report in support of his allegations, as provided in section 38 (1) (c) of the Act above and in absence of the same, the allegations of the complaint cannot be established and the instant complaint ought to be dismissed with costs. The other legal objection raised that Contrary to the claim, no complaint was received from the complainant on April 13, 2022. Instead, a complaint was received on April 14, 2022, which was promptly attended to. Upon inspection, a washing machine vibration issue was reported. Subsequent examination revealed an improper levelling of the washing machine on the floor. The washing machine's feet were duly adjusted to achieve proper levelling, and the washing machine's correct functionality was demonstrated. A copy of the job card dated April 14, 2022, is enclosed with the written statement. Nevertheless, the complainant has failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting their claims of a defective "Electronic Head" in the washing machine. There is no designated part referred to as an "Electronic Head" in automatic washing machines. While automatic washing machines do incorporate electronic components and controls, these are typically integrated within a control panel or module responsible for managing the machine's cycles, functions, and settings. False assertions concerning the alleged "Electronic Head," service representative statements, part replacements, etc., have been made. Neither was there a malfunction nor were any parts replaced. The complainant's falsified claims are driven by ulterior motives. On merits, opposite party No.3 has reiterated their version as taken in the legal objection as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, Special Power of Attorney of the Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 12.7.2023 (Ex. C-22) and the documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Kumar Johri dated 29-8-2023 (Ex.OP-3/4) and documents (Ex.OP-3/1 to Ex.OP-3/3). We have heard Special Power of Attorney of the Complainant and Counsel for opposite parties and gone through the file carefully. Special Power of Attorney of the Complainant and learned counsel for opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The admitted facts of this case are that the complainant purchased one Washing Machine of IFB Brand i.e. Top Load Washing Machine from the opposite party No.1 through Invoice No.2067 dated 6.3.2022. After that the Washing Machine started giving problems and complainant made complaints regarding this on 31.3.2022, 13.4.2022, 22.1.2023 and then on 30.1.2023. From this fact, it can be seen that the Washing Machine started giving problems within few days of its purchase. Complainant requested the opposite parties on 5.6.2022 for replacement of Washing Machine. The opposite parties vide their e-mail stated that the replacement request has been generated and they are awaiting approval from their branch and requested to wait for sometime. The opposite parties again sent an e-mail on 6.6.2022 stating that the replacement will be done by friday. Thereafter a number of e-mails and messages were exchanged, but the opposite parties did not replace the Washing Machine with new one. It becomes clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not replacing the Washing Machine with new one as committed by them. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to replace the defective Washing Machine with new one or in alternative to refund the amount of Rs.34,300/- i.e price of Washing Machine to the complainant and further directed to pay a cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental tension. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 31-10-2023 - (R.L Mittal)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
