DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No.CC/14/336 of 8.12.2014

                                      Decided on:        15.05.2015

Gajjan Singh S/o Late Sh.Mangat Singh R/o House No.24, Street No.2, Aman Vihar, Bhadson Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …..............Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Garg Enterprises, through its Manager/Partner, SCO-206, Near Ravi Hospital Road, Urban Estate, Phase-1, Patiala.
2. Whirlpool of India Ltd.,910, NAC Market, Top Floor, Mani Majra, U.T.Chandigarh.
3. R.S.Sales, authorized service partner of Whirlpool of India Ltd., through Sh.Amit Kumar, 373, Guru Nanak Nagar, Opposite T.B.Hospital, Patiala.

                                                                  …...........Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member  

Present:

For the complainant:     In person

For Op No.1:                  Ex-parte

For Op no.3:                  Sh.Sunil Kumar Garg,Advocate 

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a fully automatic washing machine make Whirlpool for Rs.25000/ from Op no.1 vide invoice No.1206 dated 16.10.2009. The said washing machine had developed major defect and therefore, the same ceased to work in the month of July, 2013. A complaint was lodged by the complainant with A.K.Electro, 1103/3, Bagichi Het Ram, Patiala, the service centre of Op no.2, the manufacturer of the washing machine on 11.7.2013 vide complaint No.CH0713005671.The  washing machine was left at the service centre on the said date and the complainant was asked to visit at the service centre after a week.
2. When the complainant visited the service centre after a week, the mechanics of the service centre apprised the complainant about the breakdown of the washing machine with the assurance to repair the same on receipt of the necessary parts of the washing machine as the service centre was out of stock of the requisite parts. Thereafter, the complainant visited the service centre after fortnight but the mechanics of the service centre disclosed about the non-receipt of the parts of the washing machine and asked him to wait for another period of 10-12 days. The complainant had been making visits to the complainant fortnightly and every time the position remained the same i.e. the parts were not available, which resulted into the harassment and inconvenience  as also the monetary loss suffered by the complainant.
3. In the aforesaid process, the repair work undertaking of the service centre was assigned by Op no.2 to M/s R.S.Sales, Guru Nanak Nagar, opposite T.B.Hospital, Patiala i.e. Op no.3 and the washing machine had been  shifted  to Op no.3 for the sake of its repair. The complainant got his complaint registered with Op no.3 vide complaint No.CH071400279079 dated 7.7.2014.However, the same process started with Op no.3 as the mechanics of Op no.3 apprised the complainant about the non receipt of the parts of the washing machine who assured that the washing machine will be repaired at the earliest but to no effect.
4. It is further averred by the complainant that the failure on the part of the Ops to repair the washing machine resulted into the harassment and the embarrassment suffered by the complainant. He had to purchase a semi-auto washing machine for Rs.16000/-. On account of deficiency of service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the inconvenience suffered by him; to pay Rs.16000/- in respect of the price of the Semi-auto washing machine purchased by him with interest @12% per annum w.e.f.11.7.2013 and further to award him with a compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
5. Initially, the complaint was filed against Ops no.1&2 but before the admission of the complaint an application was filed by the complainant that Op no.3 was appointed as authorized service partner and that the washing machine had been shifted to Op no.3 and therefore, Op no.3 being a  necessary party was also impleaded as an Op vide order dated 19.12.2014.
6. The complaint was admitted against Ops no.1&3.
7. Only Op no.3 appeared to contest the complaint, whereas Op no.1 despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
8. In the written version filed by op no.3, it is stated that the complainant purchased the washing machine on 16.10.2009 with a warranty of two years. The warranty stood already expired on 16.10.2011. It is further stated that  the complainant had registered a complaint vide No.CHO714002790 on 7.7.2014 with the Op. On being asked by the Op for a date to inspect the machine by the Op, the complainant insisted that he himself will bring the same to the service centre. The complainant was not prompt in taking the issue despite having lodged the complaint On 7.7.2014 he had brought the washing machine to the Op only on 20.7.2014. The Op inspected the machine and it was found that the same was out of warranty. Accordingly the complainant was explained that the charges of spare parts and cost for repair will have to borne by him. The complainant was also informed in writing in this regard on 21.7.2014. The copy of the estimated bill is produced as Annexure R1. However, the complainant failed to give his consent for repairing the washing machine. It is averred that the Op is morethan willing to serve the complainant provided charges for the repair are paid by the complainant. The complainant despite knowing the fact that the washing machine was out of warranty and he was obliged to pay the charges , refused to pay the same and rather has approached this Forum. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 and the  complainant closed his evidence.
10. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Amit Kumar, service partner of M/s R.S.Sales alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed its evidence.
11. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the Op and gone through the evidence on record.
12. The complainant has no where alleged in the complaint that he was provided with a two years warranty on the washing machine , a fact categorically stated by the Op in the written version and not denied by the complainant in his sworn affidavit,Ex.CA. It is the positive plea taken up by the Op that the complainant had approached the Op beyond the warranty period and therefore,  he was explained  that the charges for the spare parts and the cost for repairing the machine will have to be borne by him. He was also given in writing in this regard on 21.7.2014 but the complainant never gave his consent . The Op has produced the estimate,Ex.Op1 dated 21.7.2014 in a sum of Rs.10325/-.There is also the deposition made by Sh.Amit Kumar, Service partner of Op no.3 that the Op had inspected the machine and it was found that the same was out of warranty and accordingly the complainant was explained that the charges for spare parts and cost of repairing the same will have to be borne by the complainant. It was also given in writing in this regard on 21.7.2014 but the complainant never gave his consent.
13. It was simply submitted by the complainant that the warranty of the product having expired would not mean that he could not get the after sale service from the Op. The Op should have repaired the machine first and claimed the charges lateron. In case the Op had not to repair his washing machine because of the non- availability of the spare parts, why he was made to suffer for a long time. In this regard, it was submitted by Sh.S.K.Garg, the learned counsel for the Op that the Op is still ready to repair the washing machine of the complainant provided he gives his consent for making payment of the charges as per the estimate  but as a matter of fact he wants the washing machine to be repaired without paying any charges, a fact not rebutted by the complainant in his sworn affidavit,Ex.CA.
14. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the washing machine having gone out of order beyond the warranty period, the Op was not obliged to  repair the same or replace the defective parts without the charges to be paid by the complainant. The complainant was apprised about the estimate of the charges vide Ex.OP1 but he failed to give his consent for repairing the machine as per the estimate and therefore, it can not be said that there was any deficiency of service on the part of the Op. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with the observation that the complainant may get his washing machine repaired by Op no.3 by giving his consent about the estimate Ex.OP1.

Pronounced

Dated:15.05.2015

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President