DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 17/2019

QUORUM:

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP alleging deficiency in service in not repairing the Washing Machine during the extended warranty period.

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one Godrej Front Load Automatic Washing Machine for Rs.31,000/- on 19.01.2012 and also purchased comprehensive service contract with all parts covered from OP on 07.11.2016 which was valid upto 06.11.2019 however the said washing machine went out of order and complaint was made on 09.12.2016 whereafter some technician of OP visited on 10.12.2016 and necessary adjustment was done but machine did not work thereafter and after following rigorous follow up it was repaired after three months.  The machine again went out of order on 08.08.2017 for which complaint was made but apart from fake assurances, nothing was done and then the complainant wrote a letter to the Chairman of OP, whereafter one Sh. Vishakh Bhan of OP accepted on 14.10.2012 that this machine cannot be repaired and offered as replacement with the ‘display unit having minor scratches’ and then a letter was written by the complainant against this letter so as to inform the complainant about the exact model with guarantee but it was not replied and after much follow up again one Mr. Ajay Kumar ASM of OP again offered to replace the machine with top loading display damage unit in operational condition with no additional warrantee which was not accepted by the complainant and thereafter complainant had filed the present complaint alleging that he had been supplied a defective washing machine and as such OP be directed to refund Rs.31,000/- along with service contract amount of Rs.8,500/- and another amount of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony, damages and litigation of Rs.5,000/-.
2. The OP was served and has filed written statement taking preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable as this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Complaint case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties as the seller has not been made a party, there is no manufacturing defect in the washing machine and as such OP is not liable to pay any compensation, and there being no privity of contract in between complainant and OP. The present complaint is false, misleading, frivolous and filed with malafide intentions and complainant has not been able to find out any mechanical/technical report of the expert of his product/washing machine and therefore complaint case be dismissed.
3. On merit purchase of the machine and of the extended warranty is not denied but it is submitted that complainant made first complaint on 10.12.2016 which was rectified and PCB and Drain Motor was replaced with full satisfaction of the complainant and washing machine was working properly. Second complaint was made by complainant on 29.05.2017 after about five months when the first complaint was lodged which was again attended to and drain block was cleared to the full satisfaction of the complainant. The third complaint was made on 18.08.2017 and the expert technician visited the premises and found the PCB was defective and it was submitted that due to unavailability of the PCB the company may refund the amount as per the depreciation value which was declined by the complainant. It is further submitted that fourth and last complainant was made on 14.10.2017 and since the issue was same as it was in the previous complaint w.r.t. PCB and as a goodwill gesture replacement was offered with display unit which was also denied by the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency on the part of complainant, and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed.
4. Complainant has filed Rejoinder and his own evidence by way of affidavit.
5. OP has filed evidence of Sh. Ajay Mathur, AR of OP.
6. Both the parties have reiterated the facts of their pleadings.
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. The Washing Machine was admittedly purchased in the year 2012 and the first defect was after about 4 years in December 2016. Admittedly, there is no manufacturing defect in the machine either alleged or proved. The contention of the OP is that when the third complaint was made the PCB unit was out of order and was not available and thereafter replacement with the display unit having minor scratches was offered which was denied by the complainant and even the refund on the depreciation value was offered which was also denied and therefore there is no deficiency otherwise. The contention of the complainant on the other hand is that after having the offer w.r.t. replacement with the display unit having minor scratches and after having offer of refund on the basis of depreciation value nothing specific was mentioned and the complainant even has written letters to the OP thereby asking him to report as to what exactly would be the condition of the machine which is being offered and what would be the warrantee and complainant has also asked the OP what would be the depreciated value exactly which were not specifically replied.
9. Admittedly, the extended warranty of washing machine was upto 2019 as stated which fact is not denied by OP and complaint therefore is not barred by law and is within time. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the washing machine and extended warrantee was purchased from the Laxmi Nagar area which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and therefore this argument of OP is also not tenable.  The seller has not been made a party is also not much worth as the present complaint is revolves around the extended period of warrantee given by the manufacturer and on the complaint, the OP had been attending the same and therefore the case is not bad even on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties however the contentions of OP that there is no manufacturing defect in the machine alleged and there is no opinion of the expert is well found as the complainant admittedly used the machine for about 6 years and all the complaints meanwhile have been duly attended to by the OP. The only issue which compel the complainant to approach the Commission is that he was not informed by the OP as to what exactly would be the depreciation value of the product and if unit is to be replaced then what would be the condition of the replaced unit and therefore the complainant had approached this Commission.  
10. The Commission is of the opinion that this issue was sort able issue and could have been solved out if the further communication in this matter could have been done by both the parties but somehow it has not been done and complaint case has been filed. Admittedly, the complainant had used the machine for about six years and has not been able to prove that there was any manufacturing defect. In these circumstances, the full refund of the machine purchased in 2012 would not be of justice. Consumer complaint cases cannot be allowed to succeed after six years of use of the product to the extent of full value particularly where no expert opinion is on the record. The Commission is of the opinion that the product was within warrantee upto 2019 from 2012 i.e. for about 7 years out of which the complainant has utilized the product for about 6 years without any defect.  Therefore, this Commission to strike the balance and hereby Orders as follows:

• OP be directed to refund the amount to the extent of 35% of the original amount i.e. Rs.31,000/- and also refund the full amount of the extended warrantee i.e. Rs.8500/-.  In these circumstances no interest is granted to the complainant.  The OP however would pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- in addition, including litigation charges.

This order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and if not complied with by OP then an interest @ 9% applicable on all above amounts payable by OP to the complainant from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.    

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.   

Announced on 07.05.2024.