BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt.  Case No :  44  of  2010

Date of Institution:    22.01.2010

Date of Decision  :    19.08.2010

S.C.Bhatia s/o Sh.Om Parkash Bhatia, #11-B, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh

……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          Gupta Electronics Co. (IFB Dealer), SCO No.1117, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh 160 022

2]          Sh.Govinderjit Singh, Area Service Incharge IFB Industries Ltd., SCO 146-47, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160034

3]       IFB, Head Customer Service, IFB Industries Limited, L-1, Verna Electronics City, GOA Verna 403722

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Complainant in person.

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Adv. for OPs No.2 & 3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.S.C.Bhatia son of Sh.O.P.Bhatia, under the Consumer Protection Act, against the OPs demanding replacement of a noisy washing machine.

1]             According to the facts of the case, the complainant had purchased a IFB Digital 7 Kg Washing Machine from M/s Gupta Electronics Co., Sector 22-C, Chandigarh on 28.11.2008.  On 28.5.2009 a mechanic from IFB Service Centre came to service the washing machine for the first time.  After the service, the nickel polish of the drum  of the machine faded and the machine started giving noise.  As per the complainant, he and his neighbour had bought two washing machines together. The machine of the neighbour was running smoothly but the complainant’s machine was giving noise. Again on 9.9.2009 the complainant filed a complaint with Customer Care Cell of IFB but no one from the Service Centre responded to his complaint.  When the complainant went to the dealer, the ‘Area Service Incharge of IFB’, namely, Sh.Govinderjit Singh took the washing machine to IFB Service Centre and got the tub changed but the noise still continued. 

                The complainant has alleged  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs because they have neither properly repaired his washing machine nor replaced it with a new one as per the warranty clause.  He has, therefore, filed the instant complaint requesting for replacement of the washing machine. 

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.  Ops No.2 & 3 appeared and filed reply. OP No.1 was also duly served. But on the next date of hearing neither the OP appeared in person nor any authorized agent appeared on its behalf. Therefore, OP No.1 was proceeded exparte on 23.3.2010.

3]             In the reply jointly filed by OPs No.2 & 3, it is submitted that the appliance sold to the complainant was of the highest quality and the complainant had taken the delivery of the machine after pre-delivery inspection and to his entire satisfaction.  The OP always fully complies with the warranties, assurances and specifications provided for the appliances. 

                The OPs have further stated that the complainant has not made out any ground for relief under the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for defect in goods supplied, or deficiency in service provided to the complainant.  In view of this submission alone, the complaint should be dismissed. The complainant has prayed for refund of the price, interest thereon and compensation, but the OP No.3 has extended the limited warranty to the complainant.                    Further, the complainant has not paid any consideration to OP No.2 for the machine.  Therefore, OP No.2 is not a service provider and as such the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.2.

                As per the OPs, the complainant is leveling false allegations by mentioning wrong customer code and ticket number as job cards.  The only job card is of 11.6.2009, which has been placed at Ann.R-3/2 on which it ha been noted that the washing machine was checked and found OK.  As per the OPs, the complainant had taken the washing machine to the workshop for thorough checking and after checking, nothing was found wrong with the machine. The complainant is regularly utilizing the washing machine at high speed and has not experienced any problem.  Even the tub has not been replaced by OP No.3 to control the noise, as alleged.  The functioning of the washing machine was adjudged normal and there is no extraordinary noise at all. The OPs have therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4]             We have heard the complainant in person and the ld.Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3, and have also gone through the evidence and documents placed on record.

5]             The washing machine is fully covered under the warranty as per Ann.R-3/1, which provides a 24 months warranty from the date of purchase.  However, a look at the facts show that the complainant has not been able to point out any specific fault in the machine.  He is also using the machine regularly.  The only problem, as alleged by him is that his machine is more noisy than that of his neighbour.  The ld.Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 at the time of argument has submitted that no two machines would emit the same noise.  One sound would definitely be different from the other.  This would not be a cause or reason for finding fault in the machine or for replacement of the machine or even refund of the price thereof.

6]             The complainant has nowhere alleged that the machine is not working properly and that he has been harassed due to its non-functioning.  Just extra noise compared to his neighbour’s machine cannot be taken as a ground for replacement of the machine, awarding of compensation or refunding the price thereof, just because it is under warranty.  Making such an award of replacement and compensation would defeat the provision of the Consumer Protection Act. 

7]             However, in the interest of the consumer, we deem it appropriate that the OPs be directed to visit the premises of complainant, within one week of receipt of this order to check his washing machine and remove the defects, if any, as per warranty.  The complaint is disposed of accordingly.

8]             Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of any charge. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance.    

Announced

19^th Aug., 2010                     

                                                                                      Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                          Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’