Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/522/2019

Ranjana Kakkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.522 of 2019

                                                     Date of institution: 4.12.2019                                                                 

                                                       Date of decision:22.02.2022.

                         

Ranjana Kaakkar w/o Sh.Narinder Kakkar, d/o Gian Chand Katariya aged 63 years, resident of house No.374, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra 136118/

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.IFB  Industries Limited, Home Appliances Division, L-1, Verna Electronics City, Verna Salcete, GOA.

2.IFB Industriews Limited, Karnal c/o Himalya Cold Storage, near Devi Lal Chowk, GT Road, by pass, Karnal 132001.

 

3. IFB Point, Paras Enterprises, Para Complex, Paras Road, Kurukshetra.

                                                                          ….Opposite parties.

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Sh.Deepak Bhatt Advocate for OP No.1 and 2.

                OP No.3 ex parte.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by Ranjana Kakkar against IFB Industries etc.-Opposite Parties.

2.             In the complaint it is stated that the complainant purchased washing machine from IFB for Rs.30,387/- on 20.2.2013 with the details as mentioned in para no.1 of the complaint. Due to technical fault the machine stopped working in August 2019,  and the complainant got registered a complaint telecalling at the customer care of IFB. As per the process company’s technician visited the place to check the problem and to repair the machine.  Technician told the complainant to get the PCB part replaced and also informed that the chances of getting a new PCB are low as the model is no longer in the production and the company has no spare parts available. He suggested the complainant to get in touch with customer care since the company is bound to provide spare parts for at least ten years from the date of purchase.  The Manager of Ops namely Ajay Kumar suggested to purchase a new machine at heavy discount but the said process did not succeed and it wasted three months time. Then the complainant raised a complaint with JagoGrahakJago number 1727453. There too the complaint was closed by the company starting that they are ready to provide a replacement at a discount. This closure  was a deliberate attempt to further complicate the matter as the company now knew that due to negligence on their part the complainant had already purchased a new machine. The complainant also clarified his position on telephone and on e-mails but no fruitful purpose has been served. This act on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in services on their part and the complainant has prayed that she has purchased a new machine after waiting for 90 days and she has sought 100% refund of the cost of machine alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to him together with litigation expenses.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the washing machine is not under warranty and the OP No.1 and 2 are not under obligation to render the services to the complainant. The complainant is unable to produce on record any of the alleged contractual  terms between the parties at the time of purchase of machine.  The Ops are not bound to supply the spare parts  support for the  fully automatic machine for ten years.  The complainant has not paid any consideration amount to the OP no.1 and 2 for providing the said spare parts for a period of ten years.  The complainant has concocted a false and fabricated story that the Ops got checked the machine of the complainant and told that PCB of the machine is required to be replaced.  The name and identity of the  said technician has not been disclosed.  It is however, admitted that the manufacturing of the Angular washing machine having capacity of 6.5 kg (Front Loading) has been stopped as the said model has been replaced by the washing machine of latest technique.  Various new models of the appliances has been introduced which are in fast selling.  The washing machine has been utilized for a period of over 6 years. No prudent person is expected to purchase the appliance and keep the same at house without installation.  The Ops never received the complaint of replacement of PCB nor there is any Manager namely Ajay in the area of Kurukshetra. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The complainant has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed her evidence.

 

5.             On the other hand, OP No.1 and 2 has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and  tendered documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.

 

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file very carefully.

 

7.             The  complainant  while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant purchased washing machine from IFB for Rs.30,387/- on 20.2.2013 with the details as mentioned in para no.1 of the complaint. Due to technical fault the machine stopped working in August 2019, and the complainant got registered a complaint telecalling at the customer care of IFB. As per the process company’s technician visited the place to check the problem and to repair the machine.  Technician told the complainant to get the PCB part replaced and also informed that the chances of getting a new PCB are low as the model is no longer in the production and the company has no spare parts available. He suggested the complainant to get in touch with customer care since the company is bound to provide spare parts for at least ten years from the date of purchase.  The Manager of Ops namely Ajay Kumar suggested to purchase a new machine at heavy discount but the said process did not succeed and it wasted three months time. Then the complainant raised a complaint with JagoGrahakJago number 1727453. There too the complaint was closed by the company starting that they are ready to provide a replacement at a discount. This closure  was a deliberate attempt to further complicate the matter as the company now knew that due to negligence on their part the complainant had already purchased a new machine. The complainant also clarified his position on telephone and on e-mails but no fruitful purpose has been served. This act on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in services on their part.

 

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued that  the washing machine is not under warranty and the OP No.1 and 2 are not under obligation to render the services to the complainant. The complainant is unable to produce on record any of the alleged contractual  terms between the parties at the time of purchase of machine.  The Ops are not bound to supply the spare parts  support for the  fully automatic machine for ten years.  The complainant has not paid any consideration amount to the OP no.1 and 2 for providing the said spare parts for a period of ten years.  The complainant has concocted a false and fabricated story that the Ops got checked the machine of the complainant and told that PCB of the machine is required to be replaced.  The name and identity of the  said technician has not been disclosed.  It is however, admitted that the manufacturing of the Angular washing machine having capacity of 6.5 kg (Front Loading) has been stopped as the said model has been replaced by the washing machine of latest technique.  Various new models of the appliances has been introduced which are in fast selling.  The washing machine has been utilized for a period of over 6 years. No prudent person is expected to purchase the appliance and keep the same at house without installation.  The Ops never received the complaint of replacement of PCB nor there is any Manager namely Ajay in the area of Kurukshetra. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

9.             From the copy of invoice Ex.C-1, purchase of the machine by the complainant from Ops is not in dispute. From the E-mail Ex.C-4, it is clear that the Ops have not been able to provide spare parts to fix the product as it is a non serviceable part. The Ops have also offered for exchange of the machine. Vide Ex.C-4 Ops have not disputed the warranty of the machine as are evasively stating in their written statement. In e-mail  dated 29.12.2019, the Ops also asked the complainant to file a complaint before the Consumer Forum. Thus warranty of the machine and no replacement of the parts by providing spare parts are not in dispute. This proves deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  However, the machine has been used by the complainant for a considerable time of six years. Therefore,  when the Ops are not able to repair the machine and the complainant has purchased a new machine, therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of the  half cost consideration of the machine i.e. Rs.15000/-  alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to her. Hence, deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is made out and the complaint is liable to be accepted.

 

10.            In view of our above discussion and findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund Rs.15000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum  from the date of this order i.e. 21.02.2022 till its actual realization. The Ops shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-in lump sum  as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses. The complainant shall  hand over the old washing machine to the OPs. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of   preparing of certified copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the  Consumer Protection Act. The complainant shall hand over the old washing machine to the Ops. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 22.02.2022.                                                President.

 

                                Member             Member.