Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/156/2016

S.M. Wadehra - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries United - Opp.Party(s)

C.L. Katyal, Adv.

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	156 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	02.03.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	29.08.2016

 

 

 

 

S.M.Wadhera, H.No.86, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh

             …….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  IFB Industries United, Home Appliances Division C-2, Verna Electronic City, Verna Salcete, GOA, India-403722

 

2]  Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Chandigarh), SCO No.1112, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Branch Manager, IFB, Point Chandigarh, SCO NO.2431, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

4]  Ms.Anuradha Rana, Service Manager, IFB Industries Limited, Home Appliance Division, Plot NO.640, Industrial Area, Phase-IX, Mohali District SAS Nagar, Punjab.

 

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

   

 

Argued By: Sh.C.L.Katyal, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Counsel for Opposite Party-1.

OPs 2 to 4 exparte

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         As per the case, the complainant purchased fully automatic washing machine Model No.AW7201 WB from Opposite Party NO.2, dealer of Opposite Party No.1, on 8.3.2014 vide bill Annexure C-1.  It is averred that the said machine, just after few months of its purchase, stopped functioning due to defect in the parts relating to supply of water to the machine. It is also averred that the complainant made a complaint regarding the said defect, in the parts supplying water to the fully automatic washing machine, whereupon the technician of Opposite Party No.1 repaired it.  But even after repair, the said washing machine started giving problem after few months and it stopped functioning.  It is stated that the complainant thereafter lodged the complaints on 4.5.2014, 11.11.2014 and 20.11.2014 and every time the technician of the Opposite Party No.1 came and repaired the machine, but the problem persisted. It is pleaded that similarly, during the year 2015, the complainant lodged the complaint for the same defect on 27.3.2015, 22.8.2015, 28.12.2015 and thus, it appears that there is manufacturing defect in the parts relating to supply of water to the said washing machine.  It is also pleaded that the complainant requested the Opposite Party NO.1 to replace the said machine as the same is not working properly and giving problem very frequently despite repairs.  It is further pleaded that the technician of Opposite Party NO.1 though assured to replace the parts of the washing machine relating to supply of water, within two days, but did not turn up for the same despite several requests. It is submitted that as the Opposite Party NO.1 failed to repair/replace the said washing machine in 5 days, this compelled the complainant to spend Rs.10,940/- in purchasing new washing machine.  It is also submitted that due to failure of the OPs to replace the defective fully automatic washing machine with new fully automatic washing machine, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and admitted the sale of the washing machine in question to the complainant and it being the manufacturer of the said washing and its carrying warranty upto 7.3.2016.  It is stated that the appliance purchased by the complainant had neither stopped working nor defect developed in the supply of water parts and that the complainant had made vague contentions in the complaint that the technician of the Opposite Party No.1 had repaired the washing machine of the complainant.  The Opposite Party No.1 has denied that the complainant had made numerous complaints about the defect or problem in the washing machine, as alleged, and admitted that only on 23.2.2016 a request was made by the complainant and the same was promptly attended and it was found that inlet filter was blocked due to sand accumulation, so the said filter was cleaned and washing machine was set right in proper working manner and it was demonstrated to the complainant (Job Card Ann.R-1/2).  It is pleaded that the washing machine is not suffering from any manufacturing defect and that the complainant is regularly utilizing the same.  It is also pleaded that neither there is product failure nor does the washing machine purchased by the complainant require replacement.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

         The Opposite Parties No.2 to 4, despite issuance of notice sent through registered post on 10.03.2016, did not turn up even after a period of 30 days, hence by raising presumption under Sub Clause (2) of Regulation 10 of The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.04.2016.

                     

3]      Replication has been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of the Opposite Party No.1.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for the OP-1 and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The ld.Counsel for the complainant submitted that fully automatic washing machine, purchased by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.1, on 8.3.2014 vide Bill Ann.C-1, did not function well after its purchase and stopped functioning due to defect in a parts relating to supply of water to the said washing machine.  It is further submitted that the defect, as pointed out by the complainant, was rectified by the technician of Opposite Party NO.1 and after few months, it again troubled and the process of rectifying the defect as and when the issue was raised, on different dates, as mentioned in the body of the complaint, was carried out.  It is claimed that the complaint dated 23.2.2016 lodged with the Service Centre of Opposite Party NO.1 under Ticket No.17443026, was when entertained, the technician of Opposite Party NO.1 noticed that the parts relating to supply of water of the said Washing Machine are to be replaced with new parts and assured their replacement within 2 days.  It is agitated that the technician did not turn up as per the commitment made and under the compelling circumstances as the wife of complainant is suffering from heart disease, the complainant purchased a new washing machine on 28.2.2016.  It is main grouse of the complainant that the request of the complainant to repair or replace the washing machine in question, was not accepted till the filing of the present complaint.  It is further claimed that the warranty of the said washing machine expired on 7.3.2016.

 

7]       In defence, the ld.Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 denied the numerous complaints raised by the complainant, as alleged in his complaint, stating that it has not received the said complaints, so no question of attending the same arise.  It is submitted on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 that the request on 23.2.2016 was received from the complainant, which was promptly attended and it was found that inlet filter was blocked due to sand accumulation, so the said filter was cleaned and washing machine was set right in proper working manner was demonstrated to the complainant.  The Opposite Party No.1 has also appended the Job Card as Ann.R-1/2.  In Para No.5 of their Parawise Reply, the Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the washing machine is covered under the warranty terms. 

        

8]       It is gathered from the record that the complainant purchased the washing machine in question from Opposite Party No.2 on 8.3.2014 and it carried warranty from 8.3.2014 to 7.3.2016.  The counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has raised objection that the complainant has not placed on record any of the particulars of the complaint/ticket numbers, mode of lodging complaint, Job Card pertaining to the complaints, as alleged in the complaint. This averment of Opposite Party No.1 is not acceptable to be true, as the complainant in his replication, filed in response to its reply, mentioned various ticket numbers regarding complaints made by him on different occasions.  The Opposite Party No.1 failed to get it verified at their end and failed to contradict the same with any cogent evidence while filing the evidence, which was filed after receiving the copy of replication and it took the same plea again in their affidavit/evidence about not supplying the complaint and ticket numbers.  Thus, it cannot be denied that the washing machine in question was got repaired on number of occasions, as mentioned by the complainant, even in the absence of Job Card in this regard.

9]       Annexure R-1/3, dated 23.2.2016 supports the allegations of the complainant that again a complaint regarding non-functioning of washing machine was lodged during the warranty period. The complainant alleged that the said complaint was lately attended by the OPs and the defective part was replaced on 1.3.2016, but cleverly, the OPs issued the memo in the back date (Ann.R-1/3) i.e. of the same date 23.12.2016. As the Opposite Party No.1 failed to contradict the same, so this submission of the complainant is safely presumed to be correct.      

 

10]      The status of the washing machine was mentioned as OK.  Further, it is pertinent to mention that during the course of proceedings, the technician of the Opposite Party inspected the washing machine in question and submitted its report on 4.5.2016 along with his duly sworn affidavit bearing claim that they inspected the performance of the appliance in question in the presence of the wife of the complainant and it was found working properly and nothing was found wrong with the supply of water in the appliance. 

 

11]      Since the report submitted by Sh.Vinod Kumar, Technical Expert of OP, has not been rebutted by the complainant by way of any expert report to the contrary, so we believe that the washing machine in question, is now working properly and the issue regarding non-working of the washing machine has been resolved, but the sufferance undergone by the complainant cannot be ignored, who was not only forced to file the present complaint for the redressal of his grievance but was forced to bought a new washing machine by spending Rs.10,940/- under compelled circumstances as the OPs have failed to rectify the defect within reasonable period. For the inconvenience suffered by the complainant and for the deficiency in service, the OPs deserves to be burdened with compensatory costs. 

 

12]     In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 is proved. Therefore, the complaint stands partly allowed against the OPs No.1 to 4.  The Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 are jointly & severally directed to pay to the complainant a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses;

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay the awarded along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

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

Announced

29^th August, 2016                          

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER