Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/752/2019

Rajesh Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Limites - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Nimrata Shergill

05 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	752 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	13.08.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	05.07.2021

 

 

 

 

Rajesh Garg, aged 52 years, s/o Late Sh.M.L.Garg, #2070, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  IFB Industries Limited, #Khata No.628/693, Khasra No.13/17/2, Hadbast No.234, Village Pabhat, Tehsil Derabassi, Mohali (Punjab) 140603

2]  IFB Industries Limited, Home Appliances Division, SCO No.146-147, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. 

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

[2]

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1132 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	05.11.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	05.07.2021

 

 

 

 

Rajesh Garg, aged 52 years, s/o Late Sh.M.L.Garg, #2070, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  IFB Industries Limited, #Khata No.628/693, Khasra No.13/17/2, Hadbast No.234, Village Pabhat, Tehsil Derabassi, Mohali (Punjab) 140603

2]  IFB Industries Limited, Home Appliances Division, SCO No.146-147, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. 

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :- Complainant in person.

  Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Adv. for OPs.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

         By this common order, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two consumer complaints in which similar questions of law and facts are involved.  

2]       The facts are being taken from the present “Complaint Case No.752 of 2019 – Rajesh Garg Vs. IFB Industries Limited & Anr.”.

3]       Briefly stated, the complainant, practicing as Senior Advocate, purchased an Elena DX Washing Machine of OP Company from M/s Arvindra Electronics, Sector 22, Chandigarh on 8.5.2009 along with extended warranty of two years from OP No.2 on payment of Rs.1654/- (Ann.C-2 & C-3). It is averred that the complainant has been taking Annual Maintenance Contract of the said washing machine for the last more than 10 years and the last AMC was valid from 5.7.2019 to 4.7.2020 (Ann.C-1).

         It is averred that the complainant lodged complaint with OP No.1 about non-functioning of its washing machine on 25.7.2017, whereupon the service technician of the Company checked the machine and informed about faulty pump mechanism of the washing machine and stated that as the said part is not available, the machine shall be repaired in due course. However to the utter shock of complainant, the OPs without resolving the issue, sent message about having resolved the problem.  It is pleaded that the complainant when called to the said mechanic of the company,  he told that the part to be replaced will take few days.  It is also pleaded that every time when any fault in the washing machine is reported to OPs, they always say that they do not have the required parts available.  It is alleged that OPs not having the concerned parts of the machine in question, still collecting money on the pretext of maintenance contracts, which is illegal and unfair. It is also stated that till date the complaint of the complainant has been kept pending on the pretext of non-availability of spare parts.  Alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

4]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant had not availed continuous warranty/AMC services from the manufacturer as claimed.  It is admitted that AMC for the period 5.7.2019 to 4.7.2020 was availed on the payment of Rs.2200/- plus GST.  It is submitted that prompt services were provided to the complainant for years together in view of which he preferred to avail AMC. It is stated that it has wrongly been projected that request was registered on 25.7.2017. Also stated that on 25.7.2019, a request was received from the complainant for attending the appliance whereupon the technician attended the complainant and found that with the passage of time the pump had developed fault and accordingly, the said part was replaced and fitted in the presence of the representative of complainant. It is submitted that the Washing machine was properly working whereupon the representative of complainant signed the job card giving his satisfaction about the service carried on the appliance. It is pleaded that the required pump was replaced and there was no requirement for the replacement of any other spare part. It is pleaded that the spare parts required were replaced as and when required. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6]       We heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have perused the entire record.

7]       After going through both the complaints, the facts in common are about the purchase of the machine in question & having availed the facility of extended warranty followed by opting ‘Annual Maintenance Contract’ for the period 2019-2020 on payment of Rs.2596/- (Ann.C-1) by the complainant.

8]       It is well proved on record that within the currency of AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) period on 25.7.2019, the complainant approached the OPs by registering his complaint vide complaint/ticket No.1003583045 qua defective/faulty pump of the machine in question.

 

9]       The OPs contended that they have resolved the problem raised by the complainant qua defect and in order to support their claim, they have placed on record Ann.R-1/2 claiming that the issue regarding pump of the machine in question was duly resolved and for that the representative of the complainant also signed the job sheet claiming it to be satisfactory service. In our considered opinion, the document so referred i.e. Ann.R-1/2 placed on record is of dubious nature as the AMC period shown in the document Ann.C-1 pertains to 05.07.2019 to 04.09.2020 whereas Ann.R-1/2 shows the AMC period from 21.9.2018 to 20.9.2019.

 

10]      Complainant alleged that till the filing of the present complaint No.752 of 2019, the OPs have failed to provide due services. In reply also, the OPs claimed to have resolved the complaint so made by the complainant, whereas the call details, as placed on record by the complainant as Ann.C-6 appended with the replication and SMS conversation (Ann.C-5) reveals that the complaint raised on 25.7.2019 remained unresolved.

 

11]      Had the issue regarding defect in the machine in question been resolved properly, the complainant would not have repeatedly called the Customer Care number of the Ops till 31.7.2021 as is established from the record Ann.C-6.  From this, it clearly reveals that the OPs have failed to render proper services under the AMC.

 

12]      It is apt to mention that the OPs also filed an application in Complaint No.752/2019 for grant of permission to the applicant to inspect the Elena DX Washing machine by the expert/technician of the OP No.1/Applicant to repair the same if required, to which the complainant stated that he has already got the machine repaired elsewhere. As such application becoming infructuous was dismissed accordingly.  This fact is clear from zimni order dated 22.10.2019.

 

13]      It is observed further that to the dismay of the complainant, during the pendency of the earlier complaint No.752/2019, the machine in question again developed snag which got reported by lodging complaint at the customer care number of OPs vide complaint number/ticket No.1004186344.  The complaint so raised when remained unaddressed at the end of the OPs, an another complaint No.1132/2019 was filed with similar grouse qua defective services of OPs as is the issue in the earlier filed complaint of the same currency period of AMC availed by the complainant.  In the subsequent complaint, it is claimed that repeated calls were made to OP Customer Care, whereupon the complaint was attended only on 16.11.2019 qua the issue regarding Door handle of the machine in question.

 

         It is stated by the complainant during the course of arguments that due to unavailability of parts, he was forced to get the machine repaired from outside.  The deficient services rendered by the OPs forced the complainant to file another complaint.

 

         The OPs in their defence stated that they duly offered their services for the repair of the machine in question in response to complaint dated 12.11.2019, but they were not given permission by the complainant to inspect the washing machine in question.  This plea of the OPs is negated vide Ann.C-6 filed by the complainant in CC/1132/2019 dated 16.11.2019 which reveals that the ‘Door Handle complaint’ of the complainant filed on 12.11.2019 remained unaddressed till that date due to the non-availability of the part in question.  The SMS correspondence dated 23.11.2019 placed on record as Ann.R/1-3 reveals that till date the ‘Door Handle’ issue of the Washing Machine was not addressed & the complainant opted to get the repair work done from out source. 

 

14]      From the discussion above, it is established that the OPs have failed to render proper service under AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract), obtained by the complainant from the OPs by paying due amount, in order to get the hassle free service in respect of washing machine in question.  The OPs despite having been paid the due amount under AMC, failed to honour their commitment of providing hassle free services forcing the complainant to indulge in avoidable litigation.  It is worth noting that the AMC is taken by a customer only to ensure that the company shall provide the trouble free service qua the product including repair or replacement of part with original one, but in both the complaints before us, this very purpose of AMC so taken by the complainant in respect of the washing machine in question has been defeated badly while the OPs miserably failed to render due & proper service.

 

15]      Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in rendering proper service has been established on the part of OPs and thus both the complaints deserves to be allowed.  Since the complainant has already get the work done from out-source under compelling circumstances, so both complaints bearing No.752/2019 & CC/1132/2019 filed by the complainant stands allowed against the OPs with directions to the Opposite Parties to compensate the complainant by paying a lumpsum amount of Rs.15000/- towards compensation for causing him mental agony & harassment due to their deficient services and for thrusting unwanted litigation.

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.

16]      A copy of this order be placed in connected Complaint No.1132 of 2019 – Rajesh Garg vs. IFB Industries Limited & Anr.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

5^th July, 2021                                                                                                                                                                           sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER