Haryana

Kaithal

40/21

Smt Amarjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.D.R Saini

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.40/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.02.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:11.09.2023.

Smt. Amarjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Des Raj Saini, House No.473, HUDA, Sector-20, Kaithal, Haryana, 136027.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. IFB Industries Limited (Head Office) Okhla-1, D-60, Pocket No.A, Okhla Phase-1, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, 110020 through its Manager.
2. IFB Industries Limited (Zonal Office), Himalya Cold Store (Opposite Tata Indicom Office) G T Road, Karnal Ho, Karnal, 132001 through its Manager.
3. M/s. Surya Trading Company, Opposite Syndicate Bank, Dhand Road, Kaithal, Haryana, 136027 through its Proprietor.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. D.R.Saini, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OPs.No.1 & 2.

                OP No.3 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Amarjeet-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased a front door washing machine (IFB Senorita Aqua Sx) from the OP No.3 for the sum of Rs.31,000/- with exchange of old washing machine for the sum of Rs.5,000/- that means for total sum of Rs.36,000/- vide bill No.108 dt. 10.06.2017.  After purchasing the above-said washing machine, the said machine started making different kind of noises and also the water start leaking from the door of the machine.  The complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs and on 30.05.2019 the engineer of the OPs No.1 & 2 changed the front door rubber but after some time, the said washing machine again started raising the loud and hard noise and started jumping from its place.  On 11.12.2020, the engineer of OPs No.1 & 2 changed the main drum of machine but despite the said repair, the washing machine again started jumping and water started flowing out of the machine.  On 24.12.2020, the engineer of OPs No.1 & 2 changed the shocker of the said machine.  The case of complainant is that till date, the washing machine is making noise and jumping from its place and electric current started coming out of the washing machine and the OPs have failed to redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.          Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission, whereas OP No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 06.04.2021 passed by this Commission.  OPs No.1 & 2 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is time-barred as the washing machine in question was purchased by the complainant on 10.06.2017 and present complaint has been filed on 24.02.2021 i.e. after a period of around 4 years.  Limitation for filing of a complaint is two years from the date of cause of action; that the complainant has not moved any application under Section 38(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for taking expert opinion regarding the defect of washing machine in question; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, it is stated that whenever the complainant made the complaint regarding the defects in the washing machine, the engineer of Ops No.1 & 2 visited the premises of complainant and the defects were removed from the washing machine in question.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs NO.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased a front door washing machine (IFB Senorita Aqua Sx) from the OP No.3 for the sum of Rs.31,000/- with exchange of old washing machine for the sum of Rs.5,000/- that means for total sum of Rs.36,000/- vide bill No.108 dt. 10.06.2017.  It is further argued that after purchasing the above-said washing machine, the said machine started making different kind of noises and also the water start leaking from the door of the machine.  The complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs and on 30.05.2019 the engineer of the OPs No.1 & 2 changed the front door rubber but after some time, the said washing machine again started raising the loud and hard noise and started jumping from its place.  On 11.12.2020, the engineer of OPs No.1 & 2 changed the main drum of machine but despite the said repair, the washing machine again started jumping and water started flowing out of the machine.  On 24.12.2020, the engineer of OPs No.1 & 2 changed the shocker of the said machine.  It is further argued that till date, the washing machine is making noise and jumping from its place and electric current started coming out of the washing machine and the OPs have failed to redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the present complaint is time-barred as the washing machine in question was purchased by the complainant on 10.06.2017 and present complaint has been filed on 24.02.2021 i.e. after a period of around 4 years.  It is further argued that whenever the complainant made the complaint regarding the defects in the washing machine, the engineer of Ops No.1 & 2 visited the premises of complainant and the defects were removed from the washing machine in question. 

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the invoice No.108 dt. 10.06.2017 as per Annexure-C1 that the complainant purchased the washing machine in question from the OP No.3 for the sum of Rs.31,000/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said machine started making different kind of noises and also the water start leaking from the door of the machine and despite several repairs at different dates by the OPs, the defects were not removed from the said washing machine.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the job-sheet dt. 30.05.2019 as per Annexure-C2, job-sheet dt. 11.12.2020 as per Annexure-C3 and job-sheet dt. 24.12.2020 as per Annexure-C4.  The complainant also sent e-mail dt. 20.12.2020 to the OPs as per Annexure-C8 and legal notice dt. 15.01.2021 to the OPs as per Annexure-C5 but the OPs did not resolve the grievances of complainant.  The counsel for the complainant has stated that the washing machine in question is defective from the very beginning and is not in working condition and request for refund of cost of washing machine in question.  Reliance is placed on the authority given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Vs. D.H.L. Worldwide 1996(4) SCC 704, in which it has been held that in case of specific term in the contract, the parties will be bound by the terms of the contract.  Support can be taken from the authority laid down by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in case titled as M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sashi Srivastava, 1(2000) CPJ 162, in which Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ordered for the refund of the amount in case of failure of ordered to replace.  Hence, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund the paid amount of Rs.31,000/- to the complainant as per invoice No.108 dt. 10.06.2017 (Annexure-C1) within 45 days from today, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  The complainant is also directed to submit the old washing machine with the OPs.  There is no order as to costs.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly. 

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:11.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.