Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/15

Deepak Shoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Seth adv

27 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:15 dated 05.01.2015                     

                            Date of decision: 27.01.2022

 

Deepak Shoor son of Sh.Ravinder Shoor resident of House No.137, St. No.2, G.T.B.Nagar, Opposite Children Valley School, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

 

1.IFB Industries Limited having its head office at Home Appliances Division L-1, Verna Electronics City, Verna Salcete, Goa, India through its authorized representative.

2. IFB Industries Limited having its outlet at 434-R, Branded Road, Opposite Monte Carlo, Near Gulati Chowk, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab, India through its authorized representative.

3.Navrang Electrovisions, B-XXIII-4813/3, Shingar Cinema Road, Adjoining Boby Marriage Palace, Ludhiana through its authorized representative.

                                                                                                                                                                                       …..Opposite parties

 

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Sachin Seth, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2          :         None

For OP3                         :         Exparte

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one IFB Washing machined from OP3 vide invoice No.12326 dated 19.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.29,000/-. At the time of purchase, OP3 assured the complainant that the machine was fully automatic and it should not be operated without demo to be given by the OP1 and OP2 and the OP1 and OP2 would send the expert for demo within 2-3 days. However, no one from the OPs came to give the demo and to explain about the functioning of the machine. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP2 upon which, on 03.12.2014, authorized representative of OP2 came and stated to the complainant that the complainant had purchased the stand of washing machine from outside and not from the authorized dealer i.e. OP3 and on this ground, OP2 refused to give the demo of the machine to the complainant. In this regard, the complainant lodged a complaint with OP1 on its toll free number on 04.12.2015. On receipt of the complaint No.14405459, the complainant was assured by OP1 that the matter would be sorted out soon. The complainant further sent many emails to the customer care service centre of OP1 and OP2 but no response was received. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to give demo of the fully automatic washing machine or in the alternative the cost of the washing machine be refunded along with interest @24% per annum and the OPs be further made to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lacs and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint, however, has been resisted by the OP1 and OP2. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1 and OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and further than the complainant has not suffered any loss for which the OPs can be made to pay compensation. According to OP1 and OP2, the washing machine is being utilized by the complainant regularly from the date of its purchase. On merits, OP1 and OP2 have further pleaded that a technician of OP1 visited the house of the complainant for demonstration of the washing machine. The said technician tried to give the demo but he objected to by the complainant. Against the warranty terms and conditions, the complainant asked the technician to install the washing machine on a non-recommended trolley which was not recommended by the OP1. However, the complainant did not permit the technician to install the washing machine and has instead levelled false allegations that the demo of the machine was not given or its functions were not explained. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other hand, the OP1 and OP2 submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh.Anil Kumar Johri, Executive Taxation of IFB Industries along with documents Ex.RB to Ex.RG and closed the evidence.

6.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the OP1 and OP2 since 11.12.2020. However, we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through records very carefully. We proceed to decide this complaint on merits.

7.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that till date, the OPs have not given the demo of the washing machine with the result that the machine is lying unused, resulting in acute loss to the complainant. According to the counsel for the complainant, since the machine in question is a fully automatic machine, it could not have been operated upon by the complainant without proper demonstration with regard to its functioning. Thus the entire amount of Rs.29,000/- spent by the complainant has been rendered useless for which the OPs are liable to be held responsible for deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice and they must be made to refund the cost of the machine along with damages and compensation, as prayed for in the complaint.

8.                We have considered the above contentions raised by counsel for the complainant.

9.                The only grievance of the complainant is that after the complainant bought the machine on 19.10.2014, nobody came to give demo of the machine with the result that the complainant could not use the same. However, in para no.2 of the written statement, the OP1 and OP2 have pleaded that a technician of the OPs went to give the demo of the machine but the complainant himself did not allow him to give the demo. It has also been pleaded that the complainant directed the technician to install the machine on a non-recommended trolley and further that the complainant did not permit the technician to install the machine. It is further mentioned in para no.3 of the written statement that without installation of the machine, the demo could not be given. However, the functions of the machine with photographs have been explained in the owner’s manual booklet. To controvert the averments made in para no.2 and 3 of the written statement, the complainant has not preferred to file any rejoinder or replication. Therefore, the averments made in the written statement that the complainant himself did not allow the technician of OP1 and OP2 to install the machine and to give the demo has not been refuted. Even in the affidavit Ex.CA filed by the complainant, there is no denial of the fact that the complainant did not allow the technical to install the machine and to give the demo. Therefore, on this ground, an adverse inference has been drawn against the complainant and it cannot be said that the OPs did not give demo of the machine.

10.              During the pendency of the complaint, vide order dated 18.08.2017, a technician serving with LG Electronics was appointed for inspecting the machine at the house of the complainant with direction to report whether the machine was in use and if possible to ascertain since when the same was in use and further as to what was the present working condition of the machine. The technician submitted his inspection report dated 01.09.2017 which is Ex.RB on the file. In the inspection report, the technician/local commissioner has mentioned that he inspected the machine on 24.08.2017 at the residence of the complainant in the presence of the complainant Deepak Shoor. It is further stated in the report Ex.RB that the machine was lying unpacked and the original packaging had been removed. Two number of transit bolts had also been removed from the backside of the machine and without removal of the transit bolts, the machine could not be operated. The local commissioner has further stated in the report Ex.RB that performance of the machine could not be checked as the complainant was not ready for the same. The local commissioner has further observed in the report that the outer pipe and drum had dust formation and overall it appeared that the machine had been put under utilization. The local commissioner has further given the opinion that the machine had been under utilization.

11.              During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has referred to certain objections filed against the inspection report Ex.RB. In the objections also, the complainant has mentioned that the OPs have not given the demo of the machine and further that the report of local commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The machine was unpacked by the representative of the OP1. As regard the accumulation of dust in the pipe and drum, it is stated in the objections that mere presence of the dust does not by itself proves that the machine has been in operation. Moreover, nothing has been mentioned in the report with regard to the inner condition of the washing machine.

12.              We have considered the objections petition filed against the inspection report Ex.RB. However, the objections raised against the report of local commissioner not tenable at all. In the report Ex.RB, it is clearly mentioned that the machine had been unpacked and appeared to be in use but the complainant himself did not allow the local commissioner to operate the machine and its performance could not be checked. As the complainant himself did not allow the local commissioner to operate the washing machine who had been directed by this Commission to make a report as to whether the machine was in use or not, an adverse inference has been drawn against the complainant for not letting the local commissioner for complying with the orders of this Commission. Even otherwise, when the complainant himself did not allow the local commissioner to operate the machine, he cannot be heard harping that the machine has not been put to use. Apparently, the complainant did not allow the technical to operate the machine as he feared that if he would do so, it would be found that the machine was being used by the complainant. In these circumstances, the objections raised against the report of Local Commissioner Ex.RB are rejected being false and frivolous. Moreover, as stated in the foregoing part of this order, the complainant himself did not allow the technical to install and give the demo of the machine. Therefore, the complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs. Besides, it is difficult to believe that the complainant having purchased the machine in the year 2014 has not operated the same till date.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

14.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.01.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma