Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/831

Gaganpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Ind LLtd - Opp.Party(s)

13 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 831 of 14.11.2017

Date of Decision            :   13.11.2018

Gaganpreet Singh aged 34 years s/o Ujjagar Singh, resident of H.No.30, Professor Colony, Near Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.IFB Industries Limited having its Regd. Office 14, Taratolla Road, Kolkata-700088, India.

2.IFB Industries Limited, Ludhiana village Threekay (outside Octroi) c/o Baldev Warehousing Complex, Ludhiana-141001.

3.IFB Industries Limited, Coco Point, Hambran Road, Near Kali Mata Mandir, Ludhiana.

Opposite parties

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person

For Op1 and OP2          :         Sh.Hakam Chand, Senior Officer of IFB

Industries with Sh.Swarajpal Sooden, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant purchased the built in Microwave Oven 34B1CI for Rs.29,700.01P from OP3 on 15.7.2017. Warranty of one year was provided. In month of August 2017, door of microwave oven fell down, due to heating. This fall was because of white taps affixed on the door. This microwave was provided without accessories. Due to defects in the microwave oven, the same is not working and complainant sent 11 emails to OPs company since from 19.9.2017 till date, but to no effect and that is why this complaint filed by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, for seeking direction for replacement of microwave oven with new one or in the alternative, to refund the price amount of Rs.29,700/- with interest @18% per month. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- more claimed.

2.                 OP3 is ex-parte in this case.

3.                In written reply jointly submitted by Op1 and OP2, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint in the present form is not maintainable, more so when complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because of concealment of material facts and that complaint has been filed on baseless allegations by concocting a story. Complaint alleged to be filed with ulterior motive. No deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops in fact is there. Prayer of complainant is beyond the warranty terms. Manufacturer of the product extended limited warranty terms to the complainant. This Forum cannot go beyond the terms and conditions accepted by the parties. Complainant has not suffered any loss. Appliance in question is used by the complainant regularly   from the date of purchase. No opinion of expert produced to show manufacturing defect in the product, despite mandate of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of proving these defects through report. Admittedly, complainant purchased the appliance in question on 15.7.2017 and written warranty terms were supplied to the complainant, as per which, warranty was for 12 months and not for 2 years. Prayer made for directing Ops to produce the warranty terms of 24 months. Complainant was required to get the appliance installed from the service engineer of Ops. Kitchen of the complainant was under renovation and as such, he preferred to get it installed from his carpenter/labour employed for the purpose of renovation. The persons so employed by the complainant were not aware about technical aspect of the appliance resulting in improper installation of appliance. Accessories of appliance like grill and baking plate are not meant for heating purpose. These accessories were delivered to the complainant with appliance. The door has fallen down due to heat. The absence of the accessories is a mis-stated fact by the complainant. Fall of door cannot be due to heat. Complainant lodged request with Ops on 25.10.2017 and technician of Ops was deputed for visiting the house of complainant for inspection of appliance. During inspection, it was found that one decorative piece named as “shuttering” installed at lower portion of the appliance was damaged due to utilization of outside force causing its dislocation from the appliance. That shuttering cannot be termed as door. The plastic shutter was broken from the screw fitting point. Technician of Ops during visit offered for replacement of said shuttering, but complainant refused to do the same. Copy of job card dated 25.10.2017 alleged to be annexed with the written reply. Other averments of the complaint denied.

4.                During pendency of complaint, an engineer was appointed for inspecting the microwave oven in question on application filed by one of the parties. In pursuance of those orders dated 7.5.2018, joint inspection report was produced by counsel for Ops on 9.7.2018. Willingness was expressed by OP1 and OP2 for replacement of built in microwave as obvious from terms of order dated 16.10.2018. That offer was acceptable to the complainant, but he sought compensation for mental harassment and agony. Also statement of Sh.Hakam Chand, Senior Officer of IFB Industries even was recorded on 13.11.2018, whereby he along with counsel for OP1 and OP2 offered as a goodwill gesture for replacement of product, but by claiming that company is not ready to pay any compensation or any litigation charges. Through this joint recorded statement of representative of OP1 and OP2,it was claimed that OP company has not demanded any depreciation from the complainant, despite the fact that product after one year of use has become useless for the company. So, narrow dispute remains as to the fact as to whether any amount of compensation for mental agony and harassment needs be allowed in favour of complainant or not.

5.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and Ex.C4A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for Op1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Anil Kumar Johri, Executive Taxation of Ops and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments by  complainant and counsel for OP1 and OP2 addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

8.             From the above pointed circumstances, it is made out that OP1 and OP2 have agreed for replacement of product and as such in view of this agreement, direction issued to OP1 and Op2 to replace the microwave oven in question with new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

9.                Bone of contention remains as to whether any amount of compensation and litigation expenses remains payable by Ops to the complainant or not. There remains no dispute that microwave oven in question was purchased by the complainant on 15.7.2017 through invoice. The defect in the product surfaced and that is why, IFB agreed for sending representative on 14.9.2017 is a fact borne from the text of SMS messages, copy of which produced on record as Ex.C2. This correspondence continued from 14.9.2017 to 25.10.2017. Complainant sent 11^th reminder on 9.11.2017 to the effect that microwave oven is not working for the last 34 days and response is not received from Ops. Copy of email in this respect is produced on record as Ex.C3. This Ex.C3 has four pages. Perusal of these pages reveals that reminders from 4^th to 11^th continued to be sent by the complainant to Ops from 12.10.2017 to 9.11.2017. As defect in the product was there and that is why, OP1 and OP2 through representative agreed for replacement of same. Those defects not rectified, despite 11 reminders by the complainant to Ops and as such, certainly complainant was harassed by Ops in not rendering due services. Breakage of microwave oven in question depicted through photograph Ex.C5 produced on record and even recording of conversation of 7.7.2017 with Sh.Hakam Chand Sharma is produced on record as Ex.C4. Sh.Hakam Chand Sharma through conversation Ex.C4 claimed as if the management not agreed for refunding the amount in cash, but request for replacement was acceptable. Ex.C4 is the copy of detail calls given by the complainant to Ops for taking up the matter of rectification of defect.

10.              Perusal of joint inspection report dated 14.6.2018 even shows that plastic shutter, a part of microwave oven in question was broken and the same was requiring replacement. Even during normal operation, noise was found as per this inspection report and as such, virtually joint inspection report submitted in this case also establishes as if product in question was not free from defect. In such circumstances, non replacement of product in question for long virtually caused mental agony and harassment of complainant and as such, complainant entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to litigation expenses. Complainant has filed this complaint without availing services of counsel and as such litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- allowed along with compensation of Rs.4000/- for mental agony and harassment, more so when the request for replacement stood earlier acceded also as disclosed by the contents of Ex.C4 referred above. No other point argued.

11.           Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP1 and OP2 will replace the Microwave oven in question with new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 and OP2. Liability of both OPs to pay the amount of compensation and litigation expenses will be joint and several. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Vinod Gulati)                               (G.K. Dhir)

              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:13.11.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.