Punjab

Sangrur

CC/318/2017

Sukhvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Harbans Singh Dhaliwal

03 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  318

                                                Instituted on:    11.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       03.11.2017

 

 

 

Sukhvir Singh, Advocate son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of Village Gurdaspura, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             IFB Industries Limited, A-56, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, Pocket-A, Okhla-1, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.             IFB Authorised Service Centre, Street No.6, Shivam Colony, Sangrur, through its Manager.

3.             M/s. Goyal Radios, Chhotta Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Harbans S.Dhaliwal, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.

For OPs No.2&3       :               Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member   

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Shri Sukhvir Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground the complainant purchased one washing machine of 7.2 KG Model AW7201WB from OP number 3 for Rs.20,500/- vide bill number 29232 dated 24.7.2015 and the Ops gave a warranty/guarantee of two years for the same.  The grievance of the complainant is that in the month of June, 2017, the said washing machine started to give problem of shake very furiously and also started to make a noise, which is unbearable and sensors of the washing machine stopped working, as such it became non functional. The complainant made a complaint on 26.6.2017 to the OP number 1, but none visited to the house of the complainant. Then again on 2.7.2017, the complainant called on the toll free number of the OP and got registered a complaint.   Further case of the complainant is that again the complainant approached OP number 2 for the problem of the washing machine, but nothing was done despite lodging the complaint with the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective washing machine with a new one or to refund its price and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               Record shows that the OPs number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such, they were proceeded exparte.

 

3.               In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable,  that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief, that the relationship between the OP number 1 and OP number 2 and 3 are on principal to principal basis.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the washing machine in question is admitted. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is admitted that the OP number 1 received a request on 26.6.2017, as such the technician of the OP visited the house of the complainant and during inspection it was found that retractor (water drain pump) jammed due to lint inside the impeller, as such he cleaned the said part in the appliance of the complainant without charging any amount and demonstrated the appliance in proper working condition. It is stated that there is no problem in the appliance now. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of inspection job sheet dated 4.10.2017, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 copy of SMS dated 26.6.2017 and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.Op1/2 copy of job cards, Ex.OP1/3 copy of affidavit of Inderpal Singh, Ex.OP1/4 joint inspection report, Ex.OP1/5 affidavit along with Annexure R1/1 and closed evidence.

 

5.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice showing the purchase of the washing machine IFB in question for Rs.20,500/- by the complainant.  Ex.C-1 is the copy of job card/installation sheet, which shows that the washing machine in question was having the problem of ‘not working due to inlet water pressure low’ meaning thereby the complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs on 26.6.2017 within the warranty/guarantee period, but the Ops failed to set it right despite the fact the complainant lodged the complaint with the Ops.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the complaint of the defect in the washing machine in question was not attended immediately.  Ex.C-4 is the copy of SMS/MMS showing that the complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs regarding the defects in the washing machine in question on 26.6.2017.  Ex.OP1/3 is the affidavit of Inder Pal Singh, wherein it is clearly mentioned that on 4.10.2017 he visited the house of the complainant with other official and the washing machine was inspected and found that there was low water pressure, so the said problem was checked  and found that magnetic valve was not properly working due to scaling of dust inside plunger, which was replaced free of cost, as such the machine in question was make in working order without charging anything from the complainant.  Now, the fact remains that the OPs acted only after filing of the present complaint which was filed on 11.7.2017, meaning thereby the OPs acted only on 4.10.2017 to repair the machine in question as is evident from the joint inspection report, a copy of which on record is Ex.Op1/4.  In the circumstances, we find that the complainant suffered and harassed due to the negligence of the OPs, for which the complainant is required to be compensated.

 

7.               Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant partly and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. 

 

8.               This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        November 3, 2017.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member