DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1519 of 2009 Date of Inst: 29.12.2009 Date of Decision:16.04.2010 Arun Chanana s/o Sh.Darshan Lal Chanana, # 157, Village Bhainsa Tibba, MDC, Sector 4, Panchkula. ---Complainant V E R S U S1. Gupta Electronics, 1141/2, Near Children Park, Mori Gate, Manimajra, Chandigarh (U.T.).2. Videocon Industries Ltd., 14 KM Stone, Paiphan Road, Chitegaon, Aurangabad-431105. ---Opposite PartiesQUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Complainant in person. Sh.H.S.Bhullar, Advocate for OP-1. OP-2 is exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Arun Chanana has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to repair the washing machine and to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 15.02.2008, he purchased a washing machine make Videocon from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.8990/- vide bill dated 15.02.2008. The said machine was covered under warranty for 2 years. According to the complainant, soon after its purchase, the washing machine started giving problems. The complainant requested Company on its toll free nos. and lodged complaints No.900037 CHA/0608090187 dated 12.08.2009 and CHA2608090018 dated 26.08.2009 for repairs of the machine but to no effect. According to the complainant, the machine is out of order for the last four months and OPs have failed to repair the machine despite his repeated requests which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OP-2 was duly served but nobody appeared on its behalf either in person or through counsel. Therefore, OP-2 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.02.2010. 4. In its written statement, OP-1 admitted that the complainant had purchased the machine for Rs.8990/-. It has been pleaded that the complainant never complained him regarding any problem being faced by him. Otherwise also, it has no role to play in it because the complainant has direct link with OP-2 and service centre. A number of preliminary objections have also been taken such as the complainant has failed to make the service centre as a necessary party. In these circumstances, according to OP-1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal qua it. 5. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP-1 and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the bill whereby the washing machine in question was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.8990/- from OP-1. The complainant has deposed in his affidavit that OPs have failed to repair the machine despite lodging the complaints No.900037 CHA/0608090187 dated 12.08.2009 and CHA2608090018 dated 26.08.2009 on toll free Nos. which fact has not been denied. 7. Faced with situation, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the OP-1 that it is not liable to repair/replace the same as the service centre has not been made a party. In our view, the dealer and manufacturer are both liable for sale of defective machine as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission in the case titled as Manoj Electronics Vs. Machine Massy reported in IV(2006) CPJ-40. The Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held as under:- “4. Merely because the appellant was only the dealer does not absolve it from the liability of selling a defective TV. Taking dealership of the manufacturer has the same liability as that of the manufacturer as the consumer deals directly with such a dealer and not with the manufacturer…….. 5. xxxxxx 6. Since the respondent has directly dealt with the dealer so to expect him to run from one place to another to the guarantor or the service centre or to the manufacturer is too much. ……” Even otherwise, the service center is the agency of the manufacturer. So it is not a necessary party when the manufacturer is before the Forum. 8. Thus, OPs have failed to repair the machine despite requests of the complainant which amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to get the washing machine in question repaired free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.8990/- being the price of the washing machine in question along with Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 16.04.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
