Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/229/2018

DAYYA KUMAR KHAJURIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB INDUSTRIES - Opp.Party(s)

VINAY CHIB

21 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File No.                81/DFJ                

 Date of  Institution   01-06-2018                

 Date of Decision          08-11-2018

 

Daya Kumar Khajuria,

S/O Late Sh.Lal Mohan Khajuria,

R/O 100/7,Housing Colony,

Channi Himmat,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

         V/S

1. IFB Industries Limited

Plot No.IND-5, Sector No.1

East Calcutta Township,

Calcutta-700088.

2. IFB Industries Limited

Home Appliance Division,

      L-1,Verna Electronic City,Verna,

     Salcete,Goa India-403722.

    6/11 Shivaji Chowk Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

3.K.S.Info Solutions,Opposite Vermani Store,

    Nanak Nagar,Jammu.

4.S.S.Automation,81-A(P)IInd Extension,

   Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                        Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:-

                           Mr.Khalil Choudhary (Distt,& Sessions Judge President

                           Ms.Vijay Angral                                                    Member

                           Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                             Member

 

 

   In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act .

Mr.Vinay Chib,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Varun Raina,Advocate vice Mr.P.K.Kukreja,Advodcate, for Ops,1&2 present.

Nemo for OPs.3&4.

 

                                             ORDER.

 

                 Feeling aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of Ops,complainant approached this Forum by way of complaint in hand. According to complainant, he purchased a Digital washing machine of  IFB Company Model Digital 600-1100,Sr.No.WT DIGB 000870 from the authorised dealer of IFB and installation charges alongwith trolley and corner charges to the tune of Rs.1670/-were charged from him. That OP1 is the manufacturer and OP2 is the Head Office of IFB and OP3 is the service centre of IFB.Complainant further submitted that after purchase of washing machine, the Ops from time to time gave service of said washing machine firstly in the warranty period and thereafter after warranty period, OP3 charged visit charges and repair charges from him. Allegation of complainant is that  the washing machine was not functioning properly from January,2017 and thereafter stopped functioning from October,2017.That the complainant many times approached service centre, but OP3 told him firstly register the complaint on Toll Free Number and the complainant registered the complaint on Toll Free No.and thereafter OP3 sent their technician,namely,Ajay for repair and the technician partially removed the defects in the month of  October,2017 and thereafter again in the month of January,2018 the aforesaid washing machine developed same problem and ultimately stopped functioning. According to complainant, he again registered a complaint and OP3 again sent the same technician,namely,Ajay who told complainant that one part of Rs.4500/-is damaged and same required to be changed and the said technician charged Rs.300/-as visit charges and told complainant that the aforesaid part of the machine was not available with OP3,and as and when he get the same from Service Centre he will make a call and remove the defects. Allegation of complainant is that he waited for two months, but OP3 has not removed the defects by replacing the damaged part and ultimately in the month of April,2018 complainant himself approached OP3 for replacement of damaged part on payment of Rs.4500/-and the OP2 again sent their senior technician for its repair who clearly told him that it is very difficult for service centre to arrange new part which is defective, but till date the technician of OP3 has not removed the defects,therefore,same constitutes deficiency in service, hence complainant prays for payment of Rs.40,000/-on account of cost of washing machine and in addition prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/-including litigation charges, respectively.

              On the other hand Ops 1&2 have filed their version and resisted the complaint on the ground that the present complaint filed by the compliant is time barred. The complainant has purchased the appliance in or around the year 2001-2002 with warranty for the period of two years. The said warranty had expired in the year 2003-2004.The present complaint has been filed on or around 01-06-2018 i.e. after a period of about 14 years. As per provisions envisaged under section 18A(1)of the J&K Consumer Protection Act of 1987,limitation for filing of the complaint is two years. The present complaint is time barred and is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground alone without  prejudice to any other ground averred in the written statement. Contention of Ops is that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 20 of the Act, for being false,vexatious,frivolous and baseless..Further contention of Ops is that the appliance sold to the complainant is of highest quality and complainant has taken the delivery of the washing 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 washing machine. The washing machine in question has been given to the complainant after inspection and his entire satisfaction. Further stand of Ops is that the complainant had prayed for the refund of price, interest thereupon and compensation etc.the prayer of the complainant is beyond the warranty terms. The Op1&2 had extended        LIMITED WARRANTY Terms to the complainant. While entertaining and adjudicating the present complaint under the provisions of time bound summary procedure, this Hon’ble Forum is not vested with powers to go beyond the agreed terms and conditions accepted by the party. As such the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not suffered from any of the losses for which the complainant is praying for the compensation and or mental agony etc.The washing machine is utilized by the complainant regularly from the date of purchase of the washing machine. The complainant is not expected to see towards OP1 &2 i.e. the manufacturer to maintain the washing machine of the complainant which has lived its life for a period of 14 years. Lastly, it is prayed that complaint in hand is liable to dismissed.

                   Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own  affidavit and affidavit of Vinay Chib.Complainant has placed on record copy of invoice/challan for Rs.1670/-.

           On the other hand,Ops 1&2 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Anil Kumar Johri,Executive Taxation of IFB Industries Ltd.Plot No.640-A,Phase IX,Industrial Area, Mohali.

               We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                    After hearing L/Cs for parties and perusing the case file, in our opinion dispute hinges around the point, as to whether or not there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops, in failing to provide after sale service.

              Admittedly, complainant approached Ops for removal of alleged defects,however,Ops came up with the version that alleged defects were not covered under warranty.In support of alleged defence,Ops 1&2 have filed evidence affidavit of   Anil Kumar Johri,Executive Taxation of IFB Industries Ltd.and testimony of witness of OP1&2 more or less is reproduction of contents of written version of Ops.1&2,therefore,same need no reiteration.

               However, on the other hand, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Vinay Chib.It has come in the testimony of complainant and his witness that the washing machine in question was not functioning properly. On the other hand,Ops 1&2 did not support their defence by any expert report,therefore,mere testimony of its Executive Taxation of IFB Industries Ltd short of any expert report looses its probative value and cannot be relied upon, because complainant not only supported his allegations by his own evidence affidavit ,but also same is corroborated by his witness, namely, Vinay Chib,who supported the testimony of complainant. Therefore, it appears Ops have raised the defence just to shift the liability, that arisen under the warranty condition,therefore,in our opinion, act of omission and commission on the part of Ops, constitutes grave deficiency in service,therefore,same calls for interference.

                     After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumers as per the purport of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and OP is the service provider having failed in its statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumers. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                           Accordingly, the best and befitting course which the Forum feels as adequate step to redress the grievance of complainant to give a direction to  OPs  to repair the washing machine on payment basis from the complainant within a period of one month,positively,failing which OPs are liable to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/-.to the complainant. However, in the facts and circumstances of the matter parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of costs. File after its due compilation be consigned to records.

Order per President                                            (Khalil Choudhary)                               

Announced                                                           (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

08-11-2018                                                                    President

                                                                              District Consumer Forum

                                                                                      Jammu.

Agreed by                                                          

                                                                                      

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                              

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member