DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 503 of 2011] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 03.11.2011 Date of Decision : 16.10.2012 -------------------------------- Ashwani Dhingra s/o Sh. K.L. Dhingra, R/o #2407, BSNL Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S [1] Harjas Enterprises, SCO No. 359-360, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. [2] Whirlpool India, Corporate Office: Plot No. 40, Sector 44, Gurgaon. ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT Mrs.Madhu Mutneja Member SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Complainant in person. Opposite Party No. No.1 Ex-parte. Ms. Geeta Gulati, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the Complainant purchased a Whirlpool Washing Machine (Model Bloom Wash 360) on 6.8.2011 from Opposite Party No.1 in exchange of his old washing machine by paying Rs.24,000/- along with Rs.2775/- for accessories. The copies of bills are at Annexure A-1 & A-2. The Complainant claims that at the time of purchase of the washing machine, the sales team of the Opposite Parties informed that the machine works fully automatic as well as manually. While using the machine the Complainant found some technical and programming faults and lodged four different complaints on 3.9.2011, 6.9.2011 and 7.9.2011 with the service centre of the Opposite Parties. The complaint nos. as told to the Complainant were CH0911001472, 0911002893 and 0911003976 respectively. The service team of the Opposite Parties is claimed to have never visited the residence of the Complainant and were also unable to give any satisfactory reply to his queries over the phone. However, during conversation, Complainant came to know that this model of washing machine was recently launched and hence, the staff of the Opposite Parties did not have enough knowledge about the said product. The Complainant claims following problems with the washing machine:- (1) The washing machine on wash mode takes 23 minutes to soak the clothes and even if the machine is programmed to different timings, even then, it again reverts back to the same 23 minutes time period without completing the previous timings as programmed. The Complainant claims that because of this the machine invariably adds to the Soak time period; whereas, as per user manual annexed as Annexure A-3, it is mentioned that while selecting the Soak mode, the inbuilt soak duration in the washing cycle will be skipped; whereas, the washing machine in question did not skip this duration, but added the same to the pre-programmed time of 23 minutes. The Complainant claims that because of this there is an unnecessary wastage of time, energy and water, resulting into reducing the life of the clothes. (2) The Heating system of the washing machine is not working. (3) Rat mesh is not available. (4) After washing and draining the water, the option of “rinse” the water tank of the machine automatically gets filled up even if a small cloth is left in the machine. (5) The gap in the body and the tub is wide resulting into small clothes getting stuck causing the machine to stop. (6) The programming of the washing cycle is too long. (7) The manual mode of the machine automatically fixes its time not allowing to enter the time as per need etc. The Complainant claims that the Opposite Parties were not ready to listen his grievances and that while not attending to his repeated requests for a visit of the service team of the Opposite Parties, amounts to deficiency in service. The Complainant had even written a registered letter to the Opposite Party No. 2, but no reply was forthcoming from that quarter, even the legal notice sent through registered post was refused by the Opposite Party No.1; whereas, Opposite Party No.2 did not give any reply to it, till the filing of the present complaint. As the Complainant is stuck with a faulty machine that does not pay any heed to the programming, as desired for washing different clothes, has preferred to file the present complaint, seeking relief of refund of Rs.26,775/- the invoice price of the washing machine, as well as accessories, along with Rs.3,000/- adjusted on account of old washing machine, along with interest @18% p.a. The Complainant has further sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment suffered along with Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The complaint of the complainants is duly verified and is supported by his detailed affidavit. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 26.12.2011. 3. The Opposite Party No.2 has contested the claim of the complainant by filing their reply to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the washing machine in question purchased by the Complainant is manufactured by Opposite Party No.2; that dealers of Opposite Party No.2 who worked as independent contractors demonstrate the working of the product at the time of selling and a manual wherein all the features and functions of the product are specified is also provided to the customers; the washing machine in question has both the features of fully as well as semi automatic washing machine; the complaints mentioned by the Complainant too are admitted to be registered with the answering Opposite Party, however, the other contents of para nos. 1 and 2 are denied. While responding to the very first complaint registered on 3.9.2011, the Complainant was advised about the usage of time and buttons and the functioning of the machine was explained completely. Similar complaints too are admitted on the dates 6.9.2011 and 7.9.2011. On 13.9.2011 the Complainant again registered a complaint about the machine not washing the clothes in the duration programmed but this inquiry too was satisfactorily addressed in various wash options of the washing machine and its timings were explained. In reply to para no. 3, the problem with soak option of the washing machine it is claimed that while this option is used by pressing the button, the machine allows the clothes to soak for a certain period of time, depending on the washing option programmed; whereas, when no soak option is selected, the machine allows to soak the clothes in a pre-programmed time. The answering Opposite Party claims that this feature is similar to all other washing machines and the Complainant should have compared the same before purchasing the machine in question and cannot raise any objections to it by comparing the same after its purchase. In reply to other paras of the complaint, it is claimed that the Complainant did not register any problem with the heating system; and the Opposite Party is ready to address and rectify any defect, if the Complainant so desires. The rat mesh is to be provided by the Dealer and not by the answering Opposite Party; whereas, when double rinse option is selected, the water once drained will again rinse the clothes. The Complainant is also claimed to be wrong in comparing the dimensions of the machine with other washing machines available in the market, as all the washing machines are claimed to be of same dimensions. The washing machine in question has a specific programme for light wash; and it is fully automatic with various washing options. The answering Opposite Party thus claims that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed as no misrepresentation was made to the Complainant and was provided with the user manual after giving a live demo before it was sold to the Complainant. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the answering Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The reply of the Opposite Party No.2 is verified and is supported a short affidavit of Sh. Sachin Taneja, Territory Service Executive. 4. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party No.2, the evidence of the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 5. The present complaint filed by the Complainant on the grounds claiming that the washing machine in question purchased by him from Opposite Party No.1 in exchange of an old washing machine for which the Complainant was compensated to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and an amount of Rs.26,775/- was taken on account of the washing machine, as well as the accessories. The Complainant claims that the machine in question failed to respond to the commands as desired for washing different clothes. The said machine while functioning in its own manner was causing loss of time, energy and water, resulting into diminishing the life of the clothes. The Complainant also claims that the heating system of the washing machine is also not working. The Opposite Party No.2 while admitting to the different complaints lodged by the Complainant has claimed that each of these complaints were addressed and the Complainant was advised over the phone to use the machine in a particular manner. The Opposite Party No.2 has also mentioned that a user manual was provided to the Complainant as well as a live demo was also given before the sale of the washing machine. However, no record has been produced by the Opposite Party No.2 so as to satisfy us that it had the knowledge about the happenings at the end of Opposite Party No.1, which has preferred not to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferring to remain absent. 6. The Complainant in order to fortify his claim has highlighted the contents of the user manual (Annexure A-3) wherein it is mentioned that “if customer selects optional soak, in built soak wash cycle will be skipped”. However, in the present case, the Complainant has categorically stated that when the machine is programmed to wash, for a lesser time period, the inbuilt soak period is added to the programmed time, meaning thereby that the machine in question failed to skip the inbuilt soak wash cycle, when an optional soak was preferred. Hence, as the machine in question did not pay any heed to the command, of the Complainant, desired for different type of clothes, it is established that there was something certainly wrong with it. 7. The Complainant in order to fortify his claim has brought an expert opinion, in the shape of an affidavit of one Jasbir Singh son of Gurdial Singh, engaged with MAX Appliances Care, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, who under oath has submitted that as per his technical knowledge, it was not possible to de-activate the soaking mode in the washing machine in question and could only wash clothes with a minimum time of 23 minutes, even during this programme the machine will automatically go into soaking mode. It is further mentioned that there is no such technique to de-active the soaking mode in the said machine. Even a compact disk of live demo is annexed with the affidavit. 8. The Opposite Party No.2 while filing objections to this expert opinion has however admitted the report to be a correct one claiming that the machine in question goes into soaking mode without even pressing the optional button for soaking, claiming it to be a concept of washing machine; whether it is fully automatic or semi automatic. As the Opposite Party No.2 has admitted to a function of the washing machine in question, which is contrary to its own literature, as supplied to the Complainant, wherein it is mentioned that “if consumer selects optional soak, inbuilt soak during wash cycle will be skipped”, the same proves that the averments of the Complainant are correct and that the washing machine in question was not working as per the manual programmed by the Opposite Party No.2, manufacturer of the machine. 9. In the present circumstances, as the functions of the machine in question, which the Opposite Party No.2 claims are not followed, as per the manual, the Complainant cannot be compelled to continue to use the same as it is very much apparent that by using such a machine, that did not obey the different commands as desired for the wash of different type of clothes, the very purpose of buying a washing machine is defeated. The Opposite Party No.2 should have addressed this genuine grievance of the Complainant on its own rather than trying to assign different meanings to the functions of the machine. The Opposite Party No. 2 has failed to bring on record anything to prove that its service team ever visited the premises of the Complainant to look into the problem of the washing machine as claimed by the Complainant. Even this act of the Opposite Party No.2 amounts to deficiency in service, as the complaints registered by the Complainant and admitted by the Opposite Party were raised within few days of the purchase of the washing machine. 10. In the light of above observations, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties in not paying heed to the request of the Complainant to repair or replace the defective washing machine amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed, to:- [a] To refund the amount of Rs 27,000/-charged for the faulty washing machine. [b] To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental harassment to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation; 11. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of para 10 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of the present complaint i.e. 03.11.2011, till it is paid. The Opposite Parties are directed to collect the washing machine from the Complainant, at their own cost. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 16th October, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER ‘Dutt’
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
