Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/8

SURINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GILL ENTERPRISES ETC - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN RANA

11 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                                   Consumer Complaint No.08 of 2020

                                                     Date of institution: 13.02.2020

                                                     Date of Decision: 11.12.2020

 

Surinder Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Mangal Singh, resident of #173, Ward No.4, Deol Colony, Chamkaur Sahib, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, now residing at Sukhram Enclave, Rupnagar.

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Gill Enterprises through its Proprietor, Civil Hospital Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

 

2. Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Limited, Building No.1, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi 110020 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory 

                                                              ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                             Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present:     Sh. Arun Rana, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. Suraj Parkash, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

O.P. No.2 ex-parte.

                  

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs for short) on the ground that he had purchased one Washing Machine from OP NO.1 by paying an amount to the tune of Rs.28,500/-. It is in the complaint that the complainant is also resident of this District and his complaint very well falls within the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is alleged that from the day of purchase, the machine was defective and it was not functioning properly. It is further in the complaint that on 08.10.2018 the complainant had approached the O.P. No.1 at his shop and brought the matter to the notice of OP No.1. He also informed the O.P. No.2 telephonically who allegedly is the Customer Care/service provider. He was told by the OPs that the technician/mechanic would visit the house of the complainant and will assess, whether the machine is defective or not.

2.     It is alleged that despite the visit of the mechanic of the OPs the washing machine remained non-functional and the error was being shown on the display of the washing machine regularly. The complainant had been regularly requesting the OPs to replace the machine with the new one since the machine had a manufacturing defect from the very first day of its purchase, but every time his request fell flat on deaf ears and his grievance was not redressed by the O.Ps. Complainant gave a number of complaints to the OPs. time and again but every time the technician was unable to repair the machine and on one occasion, he even changed the motor of the washing machine with the new one and declared that the machine had become workable. Thus, the complainant not being satisfied with the act of the OPs since the machine was continuously not serving the purpose of the CC has approached this Commission and has sought the following relief.

1. That the OPs. be directed either to replace the defective washing machine with the new one or to refund the entire amount paid to the Ops along with interest @ 18% per  annum. The CC has further sought a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. The complaint is fully signed and is also verified. Further the same is also supported by affidavit of the CC.
4. In reply the O.P. No.1 has raised preliminary objections challenging the veracity of the complaint on the ground of maintainability, locus-standi etc. and even on the ground that the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that washing machine was purchased by the CC from the shop of OPs. However, it is specifically alleged in reply that no alleged warranty was given by the OPs and it is further in the reply that the warranty was based on the warranty of the manufacturer. It is alleged by the OPs that the machine developed the defect due to electricity voltage fluctuation at the residence of the CC where the same was installed. It is admitted that there was a defect in the machine and the same was removed and original motor was replaced by the mechanic of the OPs. It is further stated that the allegations of the O.Ps. that the CC had failed to check the voltage fluctuation at his residence, resulting into the continuous defect in the machine. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 and it has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The version of the O.P. No.1 is also supported by an affidavit of the OP., who is the owner of the shop. 
5. The complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6. On the other hand, the OP. No.1 has tendered affidavit of Smt. Surinder Kaur, Proprietor of Gill Enterprises Ex.OP1/A.
6. The Ops No.1 has basically refuted the allegations of the CC mainly on the ground that the washing machine developed defect due to the fluctuation of electricity in the house of the CC. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no cogent reliable and trustworthy evidence brought on record by the OP. No.1 to refute the claim of the CC. No evidence of any Electricity Department or Electrician is brought on the file.  We feel, that this type of allegation of OP No.1 is based on surmises and conjectures.
7. The other point raised by the OP No.1 is that there is no alleged warranty given by the replying OP but the warranty is based on the warranty of the manufacturer. We feel that it was incumbent upon the OP No.1 to bring some record to prove the warranty or guarantee on record to clarify that what were the terms of the warranty and guarantee given to the CC at the time of sale of the washing machine. The reply of the OP itself shows the callous and the careless attitude of the OP No.1 towards its customers/CC. We are not satisfied with the reply of OP No.1. On the other hand, the OP No.2 has chosen to remain ex-parte.
8. It is on the file that CC purchased the washing machine from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 on 08.10.2018 by paying an amount of Rs.28,500/- including all taxes. It is also on the file that initially the CC paid Rs.2266/- in cash and remaining amount was to be paid in the shape of installments which he arranged from Bajaj Finserv. It is on the file that newly purchased washing machine was not functioning properly from the date of its installation and was showing defects from the same day. The CC had to approach the OP No.1 and to bring the defects in the knowledge of OP No.1, who advised the CC to contact the OP No.2. It is on the file that the technician of the OP No.2 had also visited the house of the CC and changed some wires of the machine and assured that it will work properly but again to the surprise of the CC, machine was again showing defect on the display and was not operational.  It is also in the complaint that the technician of the OP No.2 came again and disclosed that motor of the machine was not working and requires replacement and after a number of requests of the CC, the OPs changed the motor of the machine. But even then the washing machine purchased by the CC from the Ops did not work properly. CC in support of his contentions has submitted his own affidavit which appears to be reliable and confidence inspiring. Ex.C2 is the bill which proves the purchase of the washing machine from the O.P. No.1 Ex.C3 is the warranty which is not disputed by the OP No.1. Ex.C4 is the legal notice sent by the CC, which is also not denied by the O.Ps.
9. From the perusal of the entire evidence, it is a writ-large on the file that the washing machine was purchased by the CC from the O.P. No.1 and it has permanent manufacturing defect from the date of its purchase and it is also proved on file that the machine was not working property from the very first date.
10. In such circumstances, we feel that the CC is successful in proving his allegations against the Ops and it will not be in the interest of justice to ask the O.Ps. to simply repair the machine at this stage since it is proved that the washing machine definitely had a manufacturing defect. 
11. In view of the discussion made above, it is ordered that the OPs. will immediately refund Rs.28,500/- to the CC along with interest @ 9% per annum jointly and severally (Ops No.1 & 2) from the date of purchase of the washing machine in question. The OPs are further burdened to pay a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- to the CC. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
12.  

December 11, 2020

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

•  

                                               

 

 

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

•