The complainant Anu Malhotra (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against IFB Industries Limited and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she purchased one IFB washing machine of 7kg Model Flite Aqua SX Serial No. 012372141105021286 from oposite party No. 2 vide bill No. 8533 dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.30,150/-. The complainant paid Rs.10146/- in advance and the remaining amount was financed by Bajaj Finance. The opposite party No. 2 provided 4 years warranty on the said washing machine and also issued warranty card. The warranty was valid upto 30.12.2018.
The complainant alleged that from the purchase of the washing machine, there were so many defects in the machine. It was got repaired from the service centre for about 15 days i.e on 06.06.2016, complaint No.1000395014 on 04.09.2017, complaint No.1000788580 dated 14.12.2017, complaint No.1000880537 on 03.01.2018. The service centre changed once PCB, front panel board, and thereafter again the panel board became out of order.
It is alleged that, it seems that there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine. Due to defect in the washing machine, complainant purchased another washing machine for Rs. 13,000/- in the name of her father in law Sh. S K Malhotra.
The complainant alleged that washing machine in question is within warranty period, thus she claims that she is entitled to the refund of Rs.30,150/- with interest @18% p.a because the washing machine was financed by Bajaj Finance. The complainant also claims compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- on account of harassment faced by her.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.30,150/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a and to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation in addition to Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
In view of the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 3 was deleted vide order dated 6-2-18 from the array of the parties.
Registered A.D notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 2.
The opposite party No. 1 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 1 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. That the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. That the complaint is liable to be dismissed, for being false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. The complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to opposite party 1. The complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of 'Act'.
It has been pleaded that the manufacturer of the said product had extended Limited Warranty terms to the complainant. Under the provisions of time bound summary procedure, this Commission is not vested with powers to go beyond the agreed terms and conditions accepted by the parties. The appliance is being utilized by the complainant regularly from the date of purchase. The appliance/washing machine of the complainant is out of the limited warranty terms extended by the manufacturer. The complainant has filed this baseless complaint alleging problems in the appliance without having produced any expert opinion/documentary proof in the form of evidence to prove that the subject appliance suffers from the problem as alleged, or to establish any manufacturing defect in the appliance in question.
Further preliminary objections are that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has intentionally suppressed material facts. That the complaint is time barred. The appliance has been purchased by the complainant on 31-12-2014 and the present complaint has been filed on 05-02-2018 i.e after more than three years one month. That the complainant is not consumer of opposite party No. 1 as he has not paid any consideration amount to it.
On merits, the opposite party No. 1 admitted that complainant purchased said appliance i.e. Elite Aqua SX from opposite party No. 2. The warranty card was issued by opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No, 1 had extended 4 years warranty over the said product.
It has been pleaded that the complainant has not produced on record copy of the said limited warranty terms. The opposite party No. 2 has not extended any of the warranty over the said product manufactured by the opposite party No. 1. The washing machine of the complainant is not suffering from the defects. The opposite parties have not taken the appliance in question at all to the service center. The appliance requires number of permanent connections like electricity, water and it is not so easy to move the appliance from one place to another as is contended.
The opposite party No. 1 has further pleaded that the complainant had requested opposite party No. 1 on 04-09-2017 for attending the appliance. The technician deputed by opposite party No. 1 visited the house of the complainant and promptly attended his request on 04.09.2017 itself. During inspection, it was found that the water inlet filter was blocked due to accumulation of the sand. The said filter was cleaned and appliance in the proper working condition was demonstrated to the complainant. Subsequently another request was received from the complainant on 14.12.2017. The technician deputed by opposite party No. 1 further attended the complaint swiftly on 14.12.2017. During inspection, it was found by the technician that there were scratches mark on the plastic part i.e. front facia panel due to external force. The said plastic part was replaced by opposite party No. 1 on free of cost although it was not covered under warranty terms. Job cards reveal that neither PCB nor front panel board were replaced nor the said parts were suffering from any of the defects. The opposite parties are not having any pending complaint of the complainant. The complainant has concocted a false story about the replacement of the parts of the washing machine with ulterior motive to mislead this Commission. The complainant has not placed on records any document in support of her contention. A perusal of job cards further reveal that the complainant is regularly utilizing the appliance which is defect free. The complainant further lodged complaint/request on 03.01.2018 and the said request was further attended. During inspection, the washing machine was checked on load and nothing wrong was found with the appliance.
It has been further pleaded that the washing machine of the complainant is not suffering from the manufacturing defects. The limited warranty terms reveals that the value of the appliance is not liable to be refunded to the complainant. All other averments of the complainant have been denied. In the end, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of her complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 7-9-2018 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of bills (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of warranty cards (Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5) and photocopy of bills (Ex. C-6).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence photocopy of Job Sheets (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4), Inspection Report (Ex. OP-1/5), affidavit dated 3-4-18 of Hakam Sharma (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of Job Card (Ex. OP-1/7) and affidavit dated 5-3-2018 of Anil Kumar Johri (Ex. OP-1/8).
The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
These are admitted facts of the parties that complainant purchased 7 Kg Model Flite Aqua SX washing machine, manufactured by opposite party No. 1, from opposite party No. 2 vide bill No. 8533 dated 31-12-2014 for Rs. 30,150/- (Ex. C-3) and 4 years warranty of the said appliance was extended vide Warranty Card ( Ex. C-4) which was to expire on 30-12-2018.
The complainant in para No. 4 of her complaint has alleged that washing machine in question became defective on 6-6-16, 4-9-2017, 14-12-2017 and 3-1-2018. The service centre of the opposite parties once changed PCB and front panel board but front panel board again became defective. The allegation of the complainant is that there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine. The complainant, in this complaint, has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the washing machine in question with new one or refund its price.
To prove her complaints, complainant has placed on file one warranty-customer copy (Ex. C-5), which reveals about 3 complaints i.e. 1000880537 dated 3-1-18, 1000788580 dated 14-12-17 and 1000395014 dated 4-9-17.
The opposite parties pleaded that complaints were promptly attended and washing machine is in proper working condition. To prove their version, opposite party No. 1 has produced on file Job Sheets of aforesaid complaints of complainant. Ex. OP-1/2 is the Job Sheet of request/complaint dated 4-9-2017 which shows Water Inlet Filter blocked due to sand. Cleaned it, now OK. Ex. OP-1/3 is the Job Sheet regarding request/complaint dated 14-12-2017 which reveals Scratches on Plastic Front Facia pannel due to external force. Replaced Plastic front Facia pannel free of cost. Ex. OP-1/4 is Job Sheet of request/complaint dated 3-1-18 and according to this job sheet – Checked the washing machine on load. Washing machine found normal. No adjustment required.
During pendency of complaint, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 moved an application for inspection of washing machine and to remove the defect, if any. In the interest of justice and to solve the controversy, vide order dated 12-4-18, application of opposite party No. 1 was allowed and opposite party No. 1 was directed to inspect the washing machine and do the needful.
Ex. OP-1/5 is the Inspection Report dated 23-04-18. The relevant portion of this report is reproduced :-
Date of Inspection 21-4-2018; Present : Mr. Hakam Sharma, Senior Officer, Mr. Inder Pal Singh, Senior Executive, Mr. Harjinder Singh, Sr. Technician and Complainant.
Out Condition of appliance : Satisfactory
Performance Report – Top cover of the washing machine was opened for checking up wiring aspect. PCB's circuit etc., the same were checked with the help of Electronic Multi Meter. All tests carried out found normal and positive. Washing machine was checked with load and without load without any adjustments. Washing machine was found working satisfactory. The complainant has not pointed out any of the defects in the appliance during demonstration or thereafter.
Technical Report : Since the appliance was working properly so no technical adjustment was required in the appliance.
Manufacturing Defects : Not in exitence
Complainant Observation : Complainant could not point out any of the defect in the appliance but still refused to sign the job card under the pretext that the matter was judiced in Court.
Action Proposed : No action is proposed as the appliance is working in satisfactory condition.
Noise Status : During operation normal operational noise was found.
In the end of the report, it has been mentioned that “The complainant failed to point out any defect in the appliance and simply commented that the washing machine was not earlier working properly. Any foundation/reason regarding non or poor performance were not in existence.
The complainant has not placed any expert opinion on the file to prove manufacturing defect in the washing mahine in question whereas the team of opposite party No. 1 consisting three senior officials including technical person opined in the aforesaid Inspection Report that there is no defect as well as manufacturing defect in the washing machine. Thus, complainant is not entitled to replacement of washing machine in question or refund of its price.
Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that complainant has knocked the door of this Commission due to the reason that during warranty period complainant lodged complaints regarding defect in machine with the opposite parties, out of which three job cards (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4) have been placed on file by the opposite parties. Although as per inspection report, no fault was found in the washing machine by the inspecting team, but admittedly washing machine suffered some defects and complainants lodged complaints with the opposite parties during warranty period. Therefore, it would meet the ends of justice if direction for extension of warranty period is given to the opposite parties, for the period of institution of complaint 5-2-18 till expiry of warranty period 30-12-2018 i.e. the period this complaint remained pending in this Commission (Approx 10 months).
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No. 1 and stands dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The opposite parties No. 1 is directed to provide extented warranty of washing machine in question to complainant for the period of 10 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced :
11-4-2022
(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
(Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
