Delhi

North

RBT/CC/208/2022

TILAK RAJ DHINGRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB INDUSTRIES LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

RBT/CC No/208/2022

                      [DCDRC-V CC No.669/2018]

In the matter of

Sh.Tilak Raj Dhingra          

S/o Late Sh.Bhagwan Das Dhingra

R/o 210,, Dhudiyal Apartment,

Near Madhuban Chowk, Pitam Pura

Delhi-110034                                                                                               ...Complainant

Versus

IFB Industries Limited

D-60, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I,

New Delhi-110020                                                                                     ...Opposite party-1

E.P.Electronics, Paradise Pvt. Ltd.,

House of Electronics

A-1/8, (Near M2K Rohini)

Sector-8, Rohini, New Delhi-10085                                                           ...Opposite party-2

ORDER

                                                                                                    14/08/2024

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint was received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

1. The present complaint has been filed by Sh.Tilak Raj Dhingra, the complainant against IFB Industries Ltd. (the manufacturer) as OP-1 and E.P.Electronic Paradise Pvt. Ltd.,(the seller)  as OP-2 with the prayer for directions to OPs to refund the cost of the Washing machine or replace the said machine with new one with 02 years warranty/guarantee from OP-1. 
2. Facts as per the complaint are that on 23/10/2016, the complainant purchased a fully automatic machine manufactured by OP-1, model TLSCH AQUA 8.5 kg with 02 years warranty. 
3. It has been alleged by the complainant that right from the beginning the product was giving trouble and clothes were not being washed properly for which several complaints were registered with OP-1. On one of the occasion the machine was taken to service centre for removing the fault and a stand by machine was given to the complainant. 
4. The product was returned after a week with the remarks “now OK”.  The machine was not performing as promised and the clothes were dirty with dirty spots thereby resulting in fading of the clothes.  The complainant has further alleged that the machine continued to have same problem.  Therefore, the complainant had to manually wash the clothes. 
5. The complainant was advised to change the detergent but again of no use.  On further complaints, the complainant was advised to purchase detergent powder from the company for which the complainant requested for some samples but the request was declined on the pretext of non-availability of samples. Several complaints were registered on following dates:

1. Complaint no.1000938369 dated 16.1.2018
2. Complaint no.1000991913 dated 27.1.2018
3. Complaint no.10001031901 dated 06.02.2018
4. Complaint no.10011105982 dated 23.02.2018
5. Complaint no.8000035629 dated 16.3.2018
6. Complaint no.1001249818 dated 29.03.2018

6. On 28/05/2018, another complaint was registered vide complaint No.751732 with www.consumerhelpline.gov.in. On 02/06/2018, one technician from IFB visited, checked the machine and made the video and informed the complainant that the company will call him.  The said complaint was closed without giving any reason.  Again, on 08/06/2018, complaint vide ticket No.768817 was registered for which a message giving ticket number as 1001561100 was issued stating that the technician will visit shortly.  But the same was closed with the remark “requested for cancellation owing to customer will call back”.  However, till the filing of complaint no one had visited.
7. The complainant had annexed the copy of retail invoice dated 23/10/216 for Rs.26,600/- as Annexure-I; Delivery note dated 08/03/2018  for standby machine as Annexure-II; complaint detail as Annexure-III & Annexure-IV with the complaint, and complaint dated 08/06/2018 to Annexure-V
8. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP-1 and OP-2.  Despite service neither any reply was filed nor anyone appeared on behalf of OP-2, hence, OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04/06/2019.
9. Written statement was filed by the OP-1 upon service. They have submitted that OP-1 is a private ltd. company dealing in manufacturing, sale and servicing of various consumer appliances by various divisions through its dealer on principal to principal basis.  The product purchased by the complainant has passed stringent quality and safety test as per high quality requirement.
10. It has been submitted that the complainant has alleged defect in the functioning of the product; however, he has not filed the documentary evidence to show that the defects occurred during the warranty period or was covered by the maintenance contract.
11. The grievance of the complainant was attended as and when the complaint was raised.  It was found that the product was free from any kind of defect. OP-1 had provided services acting under the terms and conditions and the complainant has failed to show any clear defect in the product or services carried out by them.   It has been further submitted by OP-1 that on 11/06/2018, the complainant was informed to use right detergent and his failure to do the same can be considered as a conclusive reason behind any defect. Rest of the content of the complaint have been denied.
12. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 was filed by the complainant reiterating the facts of the complaint and denying those of the written statement. 
13. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant reaffirming the averments made in the complaint. Since, OP-1 did not file evidence despite several opportunities their right to file evidence was closed.
14. We have heard the submission made by the complainant appearing in person. None appeared on behalf of OP-1 to argue .We have also perused the material placed on record. During the pendency of the complaint, an application was filed by the complainant for getting the washing machine repaired at his own cost.  The same was allowed vide order dated 10/03/2021.
15. The complainant has placed on record the invoice dated 23/10/2016, as a proof of purchase of the product manufactured by OP-1 for Rs.26,600/-.  He has also placed on record the goods received note dated 14/03/2018 as per which as standby machine has been collected by OP-1 and the product has been delivered after repair to the complainant vide delivery note dated 14/03/2018.  
16. The photographs of the clothes have also been filed by the complainant in support of his allegations that the machine was not functioning as per standards claimed by    OP-1. We have also gone through the transcript filed by the complainant for conversation dated 05/04/2018 to 26/05/2018, wherein the complainant has been asked by the customer care executive to change the detergent to resolve the problem by trying OP-1’s liquid detergent.  We have gone through the entire conversation, where the complainant has stated that he has tried different kind of washing detergents but the performance of the product manufactured by OP-1 is not as per quality standards.
17.  The executive of OP-1 insisting on use of the detergent manufactured by OP-1 only  this definitely amounts to unfair trade practice.  It is also seen that despite numerous complaints, OP-1 failed to remove the defect as alleged by the complainant. Though in 2021, the complainant got the washing machine repaired at his own cost, he has not placed on record any complaint with respect to working of washing machine since then. Therefore, failure on part of OP-1 to remove the problem/repair/ after sale services is also deficiency in services on their part.
18. The complainant has arrayed the seller as OP-2, however there is no specific allegation with respect to deficiency in services or unfair trade practice against them.
19. We have also gone through the photographs filed by the complainant where it is seen that the clothes are torn by using the washing machine manufactured by OP-1.  Since, OP-1 has not filed their evidence, their defence cannot be considered; we find no reason to disbelieve the complainant. 
20. The complainant has also placed on record the repair expenses of Rs.4,350/- incurred by him for getting a product repaired.  Since, the complainant has got the washing machine repaired and a period of more than 3 years has elapsed, the washing machine is working properly. Therefore, the complainant has suffered mentally, physically and financially on account of deficiency in services of OP-1 for which he is entitled to compensation.
21. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and in the interest of justice, we direct OP-1 to:-

1. Reimburse Rs.4,350/- incurred towards repair of the washing machine along with interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of payment i.e.12/08/2021 till realisation
2. Pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused on account  of unfair trade practice.
3. The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  In case of non-compliance OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on amount mentioned in Clause (a) and Clause (b) from the date of order till realization.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.