DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 52/2018

Date of Institution   : 24.04.2018

Date of Decision    : 19.08.2019

Ritesh Kumar Singla aged about 42 years son of Surinder Kumar Singla resident of #B-XI/1095, Street No. 3, K.C. Road, Barnala. 

                        …Complainant

Versus

1. IFB Industries Ltd., Registered Office 14, Taratolla Road, Kolkatta 700088 through its Managing Director;

2. IFB Industries Ltd., Area/Regional Office : 400, Threekey Colony Road, Jagjit Nagar, Central Town, Threeke, Ludhiana 141021 through its Area/Regional Manager; 

3. IFB Industries Ltd., Service Centre : Baldev Warehousing Complex, Vasika No. 505, Village Threekay, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana 141001 through its Manager;

4. M/s Goyal Sales, Handiya Bazar, Barnala through its Proprietor. 

                …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for the complainant.

Sh. S.K. Kotia counsel for opposite party No. 1 to 3.

Opposite party No. 4 exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3.Smt. Manisha : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Ritesh Kumar Singla has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against IFB Industries and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one IFB Washing Machine Elite SX Ultra Model bearing S.No. 012051120428001885 from opposite party No. 4 vide Bill No. 38093 dated 10.7.2012 manufactured by opposite party No. 1 with the warranty of four years. The complainant got the warranty of above said washing machine extended from 29.10.2016 to 28.10.2017 under Annual Maintenance Contract from opposite party No. 3 on 29.102016 and in this regard Job Card/Installation sheet issued by opposite party No. 3. 

3. The allegation of the complainant is that the above said washing machine went out of order and complainant got his complaint registered on toll free number of opposite parties and the same was registered at S.No. 18747153. However, no mechanic of the opposite parties failed to attend the said complaint. The complainant is a businessman and his wife is a service lady in public sector, as such they had no option except to purchase a new washing machine. Accordingly, the complainant purchased another washing machine of LG make from M/s T.R. Enterprises, Near Janta Bakery, Barnala vide invoice No. 3923 dated 21.11.2016. It is further alleged that on 24.12.2016 a mechanic of the opposite parties visited the house of complainant and checked the defective machine and told that PCB part of the machine was defective and the same will take considerable time for getting the said PCB Part from the Company to repair the machine. However, the complainant inquired from the opposite party No. 3 after a period of two months about the fate of his complaint, but no fate of his previous complaint was told rather a fresh complaint was registered at S.No. 18938328. As such, on 14.1.2017 opposite party No. 1 was asked as to what step was being taken by them on the aforesaid complaint upon which the complainant was assured that the mechanic of the company would visit the complainant on 15.1.2017, but no mechanic visited the house of complainant. It is further alleged that on 17.1.2017 the mechanic of the company visited the house of complainant and removed the defect in the washing machine. After removing the defect the said machine worked properly upto 18.7.2017 and on 19.7.2017 the said washing machine again developed the same problem and complainant lodged his complaint with opposite party No. 1 registered at S.No. 10002535780. Upon this the mechanic of the opposite parties repaired the said machine on 4.8.2017 but there has been problem of loud noise upon which the complainant asked the said mechanic about this and the said mechanic told that if the complainant intends to work on the said machine he has to work with said noise. However, water started leaking from backside of the said machine on 25.8.2017 and a complaint in this regard lodged by the complainant vide complaint No. 1000362072 and on this on 5.9.2017 Mr. Deepak from Mansa a mechanic of opposite parties visited the house of complainant and after dismantling the said machine told that the drum assembly alongwith ball bearings of the said machine need to be replaced but for which the complainant will have to wait for atleast 20 days. However, no mechanic of the opposite parties visited the house of complainant, as such complainant again contacted the opposite party No. 1 telephonically on 13.10.2017 who told about the telephone number of opposite party No. 3. Complainant contacted on that number and the phone was attended by one Sandeep Kaur who assured the complainant that his complaint would be resolved, however the complaint of complainant was not attended and rectified. The complainant again contacted the opposite party No. 3 on 23.10.2017 and shocked to know that his complaint No. 1000362072 stands resolved, whereas the same was never resolved and the said machine has been lying in dismantled condition since 5.9.2017. Complainant again contacted the opposite party No. 1 on 25.10.2017 and requested to solve the complaint mentioned above which further gave mobile number of one Raj Kumar. As such, the complainant contacted the said Raj Kumar who assured the complainant that alongwith Mr. Deepak he would visit the house of complainant. On 28.10.2017 said Raj Kumar and Mr. Deepak visited the house of complainant and checked the dismantled machine and repaired the same. However, water leakage from backside of the machine was not resolved and after that said Raj Kumar and Mr. Deepak never visited the house of complainant and the complainant again contacted the opposite party No. 1 and this time new complaint number 1000651769 has been given to complainant without resolving the previous complaints. It is further alleged that the above said Mr. Deepak and Raj Kumar visited the house of complainant and issued a receipt for Rs. 4,012/- on account of Annual Maintenance Contract on 31.10.2017, whereas amount of Rs. 4,838/- was charged by them on 29.10.2017 and issued receipt voucher No. 191700 5600 dated 31.10.2017. On 14.11.2017 the complainant was astonished to receive a SMS on his mobile that pending complaints were resolved, whereas no complaint of the complainant has been resolved. As such, the opposite parties have failed to rectify the said machine and complainant requested them to exchange the above said defective machine with a new one, but with no effect. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) To pay an amount of Rs. 32,000/- being amount of washing machine purchased by complainant.   

2) To replace the defective machine with a new one

3) To pay Rs. 11,800/- only being price of new washing machine of LG make purchased by complainant.

4) To pay Rs. 738/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum changed by the opposite parties in excess than Rs. 4,100/- mentioned in Job Card issued by opposite party No. 3.

5) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  

4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, clean hands and suppressed of material facts, complaint is frivolous and vexatious, jurisdiction etc.  

5. On merits, it is admitted that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are the manufacturer of home appliances with the brand name of IFB and the complainant had purchased the said washing machine from them. It is further submitted that the warranty of four years expired on 9.7.2016. However, the complainant preferred Annual Maintenance Contract for 29.10.2016 to 28.10.2017 on payment of Rs. 4,100 plus taxes. But the opposite parties have not extended the warranty for the period 29.10.2016 to 28.10.2017. Separate AMC terms were settled between the parties and the complainant has intentionally suppressed the said terms and conditions from this Forum. Further, the Job Card/Installation Sheet dated 29.10.2016 contains "W/M working" and call status is remarked as "OK", which means that washing machine was working properly and appliance is OK. However, the complainant concocted a false story. It is further submitted that the bill dated 21.11.2016 regarding purchase of another washing machine appears to be a procured document. The PCB of the appliance was not defective and is a commonly use spare part which is easily available with them. The alleged complaint dated 14.1.2017 of the complainant is denied. On 19.7.2017 the request lodged by the complainant was promptly attended by the technician of the opposite parties and on checking the appliance was found working properly. The technician of the opposite parties on 25.8.2017 visited the house of complainant and inspected the appliance and it was found that the tub with bearing was not properly working due to overloading of clothes and the customer was advised to take caution of loading the appliance with adequate load in future and the said tub with bearing was replaced under the AMC on free of costs basis. The opposite parties have not rendered the purported services on 4.8.2017 and the averments of loud abnormal noise are false and baseless. There was no water leakage issue in the appliance on 25.8.2017. The opposite parties are not having employee namely Mr. Raj Kumar. On 17.11.2017 another complaint was received from the complainant was promptly attended by the technician and during inspection it was found that fluff filter (consumable item) was blocked due to dirt and scaling. It is further submitted that on 31.10.2017 Mr. Ripujesh Kumar had collected amount of Rs. 4,838/- towards AMC charges for one year commencing from 29.10.2017 onwards. It is further submitted that emails dated 27.10.2017 and 14.11.2017 were not received by the opposite parties. Further, the washing machine is not defective and is not liable to be replaced and the complainant has not paid an amount of Rs. 11,800/- to the opposite parties. All others allegations of the complaint are denied. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.  

6. Opposite party No. 4 filed separate written version taking preliminary and legal objections interalia on the grounds of concealment of material facts, clean hands, no locus-standi or cause of action etc. 

7. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased one washing machine vide bill No. 38093 dated 10.7.2012. The complainant availed the services of manufacturer through their toll free number directly. The case of the complainant is denied by the opposite party No. 4 and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

8. The opposite party No. 4 has proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.9.2018 due to non appearance. 

9. The complainant in support of his case has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 10.7.2012 Ex.c-2, copy of AMC Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 21.11.2016 Ex.C-4, copy of receipt voucher dated 31.10.2017 Ex.C-5, copies of emails Ex.C-6 & Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. 

10. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party No. 1 to 3 tendered into evidence job cards Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 to Ex.O.P1.2.3/3, terms and conditions Ex.O.P1.2.3/4, affidavit of Anil Kumar Johri Ex.O.P1.2.3/5 and closed the evidence. 

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by complainant and opposite party No. 1 to 3 have also been gone through.

12. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he has taken the stand as mentioned in the complaint. He further placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 10.7.2013 of Goyal Sales, Handiaya Bazar, Barnala Ex.C-2, which shows that the complainant has  purchased one IFB Washing Machine by paying an amount of Rs. 32,000/-. He has further placed on record copy of Job Card/Installation Sheet of Rs. 4,100/- Ex.C-3, which shows that the complainant has taken extended warranty of said washing machine from 29.10.2016 to 28.10.2017 under Annual Maintenance Contract from opposite party No. 3 on 29.10.2016. The complainant has further placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 21.11.2016 of T.R. Enterprises, Barnala for Rs. 11,800/- Ex.C-4, which shows that the complainant has purchased one washing machine of LG make on 21.11.2016. Further, Ex.C-5 is the copy of receipt voucher dated 31.10.2017 which shows that the complainant has paid Rs. 4,012/- as service charges on account of Annual Maintenance Contract. Complainant has also placed on record copies of emails Ex.C-6 & Ex.C-7 which shows that the complainant has sent emails to the opposite parties regarding the fault/defect of washing machine and requested them time and again to resolve the above said defect in the washing machine. 

13. On the other hand the opposite party No. 1 to 3 in order to rebut the case of complainant have placed on record copies of Job cards/Installation sheets Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 to Ex.O.P1.2.3/3. In Ex.O.P1.2.3/2 it mentioned that Tub with bearings damaged due to overloading of clothes and the same replaced with bearings under AMC free of cost. In Ex.O.P1.2.3/3 it is mentioned that Fluff filter blocked due to dirt and scaling. Opened the fluff filter and cleaned and washing machine found OK. The above said job sheet indicates that the washing machine developed the defects time and again and the same was removed by the opposite parties. Further, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 placed on record copy of terms and conditions for AMC Contact Ex.O.P1.2.3/4, in which it is mentioned that defects if any in the appliance shall be rectified by the company. Further, they have placed on record affidavit of Anil Kumar Johri Executive Taxation of IFB Industries Limited as Ex.O.P1.2.3/5, which is nothing but word to word repetition of the written version filed by opposite parties No. 1 to 3. 

14. From the perusal of record shows that the above said washing machine of complainant had developed defects and the complainant lodged complaints regarding the above said defects with the opposite parties to resolve the same and even sent emails in this regard time to time. But the opposite parties have failed to resolve the defects on time and due to this reason the complainant had to purchase another washing machine which proves from Ex.C-4. But lateron the opposite parties have visited the house of complainant and checked the washing machine in dispute and repaired the same free of costs as the washing machine was under Annual Maintenance Contract of opposite parties which proves from the job sheets of opposite parties Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 to Ex.O.P1.2.3/3 and Ex.C-3. 

15. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed an application on 6.7.2018 for granting permission to opposite party No. 1 to inspect the washing machine and do the needful if required. Reply to this application filed by the complainant on 21.9.2018. We have gone through the application, reply of application as well as record of the file and are of the view that if the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 intended to inspect the washing machine in question then they had enough time when the complainant has lodged complaints regarding the defects developed in the washing machine and even sent emails to the opposite parties. Moreover, it is proved on the file from Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 to Ex.O.P1.2.3/3 the Job cards/Installation sheets of opposite parties that the technician or authorized service engineer of opposite parties visited the house of complainant and checked the washing machine and resolved the  defects. Then how it is possible that without visiting the house of complainant for checking the washing machine, the opposite parties got prepared the above said Job cards/Installation sheets Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 to Ex.O.P1.2.3/3. So, we are of the view that the application filed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has no relevancy at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed.

16. However, from the perusal of the averments made by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in their written version filed by them it shows that they are ready to inspect the washing machine in question of the complainant and repair the washing machine. On the  other hand, we have also perused the evidence of the complainant who has not tendered affidavit of any expert or report of any expert in his evidence which is necessary to prove a manufacturing defect in the washing machine, so the complainant is failed to prove manufacturing defect in the washing machine in question and he is not entitled for a new wash machine or refund the price of washing machine. However, as the washing machine was within the extended warrant of Annual Maintenance Contract Ex.C-3 when the defects/problems have been occurred, so the complainant is entitled for the repair of washing machine.

17. In case Sushila Automobiles Versus Dr. Birendra Narain and Ors. 3 (2010) CPJ-130 (NC) wherein it was observed as.-

“At the very outset, it may be stated that to establish the claim for the total replacement by a new vehicle, the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert automobile/mechanical engineer that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. Opinion of an expert body in such cases would be an essential in put. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Commission in a number of cases have held that unless this onus is satisfactorily discharged by the complainant, the liability of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts. When the present case is considered in his backdrop, it cannot be said that the complainant has been able to satisfactorily prove his case of the car suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. Merely because the car has been taken to the workshop of the petitioner-dealer several times or because a number of letters/complaints had been addressed to various functionaries and authorities of the opposite party- manufacturing company, it will not by itself amount manufacturing defect.”

Therefore, we are of the view that as the washing machine was within extended warranty of Annual Maintenance Contract, so the opposite parties are liable to repair the washing machine and replace its defective parts free of costs. 

18. As a result of the above discussion and in view of above citation of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties jointly and severally are directed to repair the washing machine in question of the complainant and replacing all its defective parts free of costs. The opposite parties jointly and severally are also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

       19th Day of August, 2019 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member

 

(Manisha)

Member