Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1012/2012

Sumeet Garg s/o Shri Deepak Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No1012 of 2012.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 21.09.2012.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 25.07.2016.

Sumeet Garg aged about 28 years son of Shri Deepak Garg, 1303 Yamuna Gali, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                 …Complainant.

 

                                                         Versus

 

1. IFB Industries Ltd. through its Managing Director, 14, Taratolla Road, Kolkata-700088.  
2. Perfect Services through its Proprietor/Partner, Shop No. 2, Opp. Vridh Ashram Street, Buria Gate, Jagadhri-135003.                                                                                                                                                  
3.                                                                                                                                                                        …Respondents.

                         

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Sumeet Garg, complainant in person. 

               Sh. G.L.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

               Respondents No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 11.12.2014.                

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Sumeet Garg has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the washing machine with new one or to refund the invoice price amounting to Rs. 15900/- and further to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and frustration granted to the complainant and further to pay Rs. 6500/- as litigation expenses.   

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one IFB EVA DX Front Loading washing machine on 26.10.2010 through Internet and made payment in cash on delivery and he had received the washing machine vide bill/invoice No. 3665000717 dated 26.10.2010 and had made the payment of Rs. 15,900/- to the delivery person named Om Parkash. The said washing machine was having 4 years warranty and on 16.06.2011, OP No.2, who is the representative of OP No.1 for providing services, visited to the house of complainant for free service of said washing machine but without any consent of complainant or his family members, Op No.2 used 2 packets of DESCAL in said washing machine. After servicing the said washing machine, OP No.2 demanded Rs. 300/- for 2 packets of DESCAL from the complainant. If, it was free service then Op No.2 was not entitled to charge any amount from the complainant. On the same day when complainant’s wife opened the front door of said washing machine to wash clothes, she observed that metallic finish/paint on metallic washing drum of said washing machine on approximately 1/4^th area had disappeared due to use of DESCAL. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the washing machine with new one or metallic drum of the said washing machine as paint/finish on it has been disappeared due to use of DESCAL by Op No.2 but of no use. The complainant contacted the OPs telephonically as well as through email dated 02.09.2011 requesting the OP No.1’s employee named Gunjan Khaitan who deals with products of OP No.1 but no reply has been sent by Op No.1 in response to the emails. As such, there is a deficiency on the part of OPs but not providing proper services and avoiding free services. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No. 1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OP No.2 failed to appear despite service through registered AD hence, OP No.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.12.2014. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts in the present complaint. It has been further submitted that the appliances sold to the complainant is of highest quality and the complainant has taken delivery of the machine, after pre-delivery inspection and entire satisfaction and fully complies with the warranties, assurances and specifications provided for it by the manufacturer regarding quality and performance of the machine. The machine in question has been given to the complainant after inspection and his entire satisfaction. The machine was sold to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. On merit, it has been admitted to the extent that the complainant purchased the said appliance on 23.10.2010 from OP No.1. It has also been admitted to the extent that the washing machine is having 4years warranty. The complainant has concocted a false story as the complainant had purchased 2 packets of DESCAL Powder vide invoice dated 16.6.2011 and the same were utilized by the complainant for the purpose of de-scaling of dust and other particles from the drum of the appliance. However, the allegations against OP No.2 are denied for want of knowledge. The complainant had purchased DESCAL from the Op No.2 for consideration and the said descal is not a part of the standard fitment of the appliance. The complainant is regularly utilizing the appliance and has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive. The washing drum of the washing machine has not suffered adversely due to utilization of descal. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his short affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of retail invoice as Annexure C-1, Photo copy goods delivery challan as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of cash receipt for purchasing of goods as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of cash /credit memo  for purchasing of Descal as Annexure C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

6.                     From the perusal of Annexure C-1, which is copy of bill, it is evident that the complainant purchased the IFB washing machine vide Invoice No. 3665000717 dated 26.10.2010 for Rs. 15900/-. The only plea of the complainant is that the OP No.2 visited the home of complainant for free service of said washing machine but without consent of complainant or his family used 2 packet of descal in the said washing machine due to which the metallic finish/paint on metallic washing drum had disappeared due to use of descal which is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the defects were brought into the notice of OP No.1 through email but they did not respond to the email which is unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed.

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant purchased two packet of descal from Op No.2 which is evident from invoice dated 16.06.2011 Annexure C-4 and used the same for the purpose of de-scaling of dust and other particles from the drum of the washing machine and has filed the present complaint purely by putting false and frivolous allegations against the OP No.2. Learned counsel for the OPNo.1 further argued that the washing machine is working properly and in the present complaint no allegation has been depicted for manufacturing defect by the complainant. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

 8.                    After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops as no documentary evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove that the washing machine in question was having any manufacturing defect and in the absence of any expert/mechanic report, we are unable to held that there was any manufacturing defect in the washing machine in question. Further the plea of the complainant that worker of OpNo.2 visited the home of the complainant for free of service of the said washing machine and without consent of the complainant or his family used two (2) packets of descal in the said washing machine, due to which the metallic finish/ paint in metallic washing drum had disappeared is also not tenable as no such evidence by way of any photograph or by way of any expert report has been placed on file.  Further the complainant has also not placed on file any copy of email as alleged by him in his complaint. further the complainant has also not placed any job sheet to prove that the representative of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant on 16.06.2011 for free service of the said washing machine and used the descal without the consent and knowledge of the family of complainant. Mere filing the copy of bill dated 16.06.2011 (Annexure C-4) it cannot be presumed that the official of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant. The complainant has totally silent in his complaint that he ever made a request on toll free number or any telephone number for getting the free service of the said washing machine. Even, the complainant has also not placed on file any copy of written complaint sent to the OP No.1 or 2 by registered post or by courier or through other mode during the currency period of 4 years. When no such complaint has ever been made by the complainant to the manufacturer i.e. Op No.1, so we have no option except to dismiss the complaint of complainant without any merit.

9.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 25.07.2016.

 

 

 

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER.