The complainant Sunil Kumar (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 the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are manufacturer of IFB washing Machines and opposite party No. 3 is service center. The complainant purchased one IFB washing machine from the dealer of opposite parties No.1 & 2 at Bathinda. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 and their dealer at Bathinda provided warranty upto 7.11.2016. Thereafter, the complainant got the warranty extended for one year on 18.7.2018, which is upto 17.7.2019.
It is alleged that after sometime from the extended warranty, the said washing machine stopped working. There was defect of water leakage in tub clean function in the machine. The complainant made many complaints through emails. The employee of service center visited the house of the complainant and checked the washing machine and also issued job sheet card to the complainant, but the defect was not rectified. The employees of service centre stated that there is manufacturing defect in the machine which could not be rectified by changing the defective part. The complainant again sent e-mails to the opposite parties for removing the defect, but the opposite parties did not give any satisfactory reply and issued complaint numbers only.
The complainant alleged that he repeatedly approached the opposite party No. 3 at Bathinda and requested them to replace the washing machine with new one or refund the amount of the washing machine, but to no effect. Now the opposite parties have totally declined the request of complainant and the washing machine is lying in the house of complainant as scrap.
It is also alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine. Due to aforesaid act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony, botheration harassment for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective washing machine with new one alongwith fresh warranty or refund the price of washing machine and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Registered notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 3.
The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In their joint written reply, the opposite parties raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. 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 under section 23 of the Act, for being false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. That the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The complainant has filed the present complaint as a ruse to extract money without just cause or valid reason. That the complaint makes out no ground for relief and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. That the complainant prayed for the refund of price, interest thereupon and compensation etc. without contractual terms. The prayer of the complainant is beyond the warranty terms. The manufacturer of the said product had extended Limited Warranty terms to the complainant.
It has been pleaded that the appliance is being utilized by the complainant regularly from the date of its purchase. The washing machine of the complainant is out of the limited warranty. The warranty terms had expired on 06.11.2016. After expiry of warranty terms, the complainant is not expected to see towards the manufacturer to maintain the appliance on free of costs basis. The complainant has filed this baseless complaint regarding 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 problems as alleged, or to establish any manufacturing defect in the appliance in question. The allegations of the complainant in respect of manufacturing defects in the appliance, in absence of an expert report, miserably fails and the instant complaint deserves dismissal.
Further legal objections are that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and had intentionally suppressed material facts. The concealed facts go to the route of the case and the present complaint is mere an abuse to the process of law and is liable to be dismissed. That the present complaint is time barred. The appliance has been purchased by the complainant on 07.11.2012 and the present complaint has been filed on or around 29.05.2019 i.e after more than six years six months.
On merits, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 admitted that they are manufacturer of washing machines with brand name of IFB and opposite party No. 3 is service franchisee at Bathinda. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 admitted that the complainant purchased one IFB washing machine.
It has been pleaded that the complainant has intentionally suppressed date of purchase of the said appliance and not impleaded the seller as one of the necessary parties to the present complaint and also not disclosed particulars of the appliance with malafide intention. The complaint is vague. The complainant had purchased Executive VX washing machine on 07.11,2012 and its warranty was limited for four years which had expired on 07.11.2016. Thereafter the warranty was not extended as is alleged to be extended for one year. The complainant has not placed on records any document and payment receipt for availing the alleged warranty for one year. The complainant has levelled false allegations. Neither the warranty terms were enhanced nor the complainant had produced on record any supporting document to establish the alleged allegations.
It has been further pleaded that on 21.07.2018 the complainant preferred to avail one-year Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) for the period 21.07.2018 to 20.07.2019. A request was received on 16.10.2018 from the complainant which was promptly attended. During inspection of the appliance on 16.10.2018 the technician found that fluff filter was blocked due to accumulation of dirt. The filter was cleaned and washing machine started working properly. Thereafter another request was received on 02.04.2019 and during inspection, it was found by the technician that there was water leakage from inlet pipe attached with tap. The said inlet pipe was tightened and water leakage from tap was rectified. Neither any defect was found in the appliance nor the parts were replaced. The appliance was working properly and the complainant had wrongly levelled vague allegations without producing copies of job cards etc. The washing machine is neither suffering from defects nor required replacement of the parts. Vague contentions have been made in the complaint regarding emails. The complainant has not approached opposite party No. 3 as is wrongly alleged. The complainant had utilized the appliance during last 7 years and is not expected to ask the opposite parties for the replacement of the appliance or for the refund of the cost. The cost of the appliance was admittedly not paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not refused to entertain complaint of the complainant. There is no alleged pending complaint of the complainant with the opposite parties.
The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further pleaded that on receipt of complaint even through phone, the computers system used to generate ticket number. The complainant has not stated any of such ticket number or reference of the pending complaint because no such complaint was lodged. The complainant is regularly utilizing the appliance and has levelled false allegations that the washing machine is lying as scrap. On 18.07.2018 the appliance was checked by the complainant before providing AMC service. The job card does not reveal that the service and/or repairs were carried out by the technician of the complainant. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of e-mails (Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-5), photocopy of A.M.C and Job Card (Ex. C-6) and affidavit dated 14-5-19 of complainant.
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence photocopy of terms and warranty (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of terms and conditions (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of Job Cards (Ex. OP-1/3 & Ex. OP-1/4), affidavit dated 10-7-19 of Anil Kumar (Ex. OP-1/5), affidavit of Hakam Sharma (Ex. OP-1/6), Inspection Report (Ex. OP-1/7) and photocopy of Job Card (Ex. OP-1/8).
The learned counsel for complainant and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.
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.
The complainant has alleged that he has got the warranty extended but no proof of extended warranty has been placed on file. The date of purchase of washing machine in question is also not mentioned in the complaint. The opposite parties have pleaded in para No. 2 on merits of written reply that complainant purchased the said product on 7-11-2012 and its warranty was limited for 4 years, which expired on 7-11-2016 and thereafter warranty was not extended. The opposite parties have pleaded in para No. 3 on merits in reply that on 21-7-18, complainant availed Annual Maintenance Contract for the period from 21-7-18 to 20-7-19.
Ex. OP-1/2 is Terms and Conditions for AMC Contract. Condition No. 1 of this contract reveals - “During the contract period, defects if any, in the appliances shall be rectified by the company or by its authorized service Franchises/Service Agents. The spare parts required to rectify the appliances, if any, could be either new spare parts or reconditioned spare parts to be decided at the sole discretion of the Company.”
The opposite parties have admitted in para No. 3, on merits, of written reply that complainant lodged complaint on 16-10-2018 and technician attended the complaint. Filter was cleaned and washing machine started working properly. The opposite parties have also admitted that another complaint was received on 2-4-19. On inspection, technician found that there was water leakage from inlet pipe attached with tap. Inlet pipe was tightened and water leakage from tap was rectified.
The complaint filed complaint before this Commission on 28-5-19 and in para No. 3 of complaint, the allegation of the complainant is that there is water leakage problem in the tube clean function of the washing machine which technician of the opposite parties failed to rectify and on the other hand the pleading of the opposite parties is that problem was solved and washing machine is in proper working condition.
Thus, during pendency of complaint, learned counsel for complainant moved an application on 17-7-19 for inspection of washing machine in question. In the interest of justice and to solve the controversy, vide order dated 24-9-19, application of complainant was allowed and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were provided liberty to inspect the washing machine at the premises of the complainant.
Ex. OP-1/7 is the Inspection Report dated 22-10-19. The relevant portion of this report is reproduced :-
“Date of Inspection 18-10-2019 and 19-10-2019.
Present : Mr. Mandeep Singh, Senior Technician of IFB, Mr. H C Sharma, Senior Officer of IFB, Mr. Inderpal Singh, Service Executive and complainant.
Out condition of appliances – Satisfactory
Inner conditions : All technical aspects were checked with the help of Electronic Multimeter and all the tests were found positive. The washing machine was in working condition on 18-10-2019. The complainant pointed out to check water leakage from detergent tray. The aspect was also checked and found OK. There was no problem in the appliance. However, the complainant requested to check the appliance on 19-10-2019 again. On 19-10-19 again the team visited to the house of the complainant. On checking it was found that the appliance had taken extra water during the program “Tub Clean” only which resulted of water coming out of the detergent tray. On checking it was found that PCB and inlet valve need better synchronization to control wrong stimulation. The said problem can be rectified with the replacement of PCB”. Action Proposed – PCB requires replacement.
In the end, the said officials and technical person/expert of the opposite parties concluded that the washing machine is not suffering from manufacturing defects and require running maintenance.
Ex. OP-1/8 is the Job Card in which opposite parties have mentioned that under good gesture, we will replace the PCB on free of cost and for this permission of complainant is required.
The complainant has not placed any expert opinion on the file to prove manufacturing defect in the washing mahine in question. Moreover, warranty already stands expired. Thus, complainant is not entitled to replacement of washing machine in question or refund of its price but from the evidence led by the opposite parties, it is proved on file that there are defects in washing machine which were required to be removed by the opposite parties, but the opposite parties failed to remove the same despite repeated requests of the complainant.
The complaint filed complaint alleging water leakage problem of washing machine and opposite parties in their written reply denied any defect in the washing machine. Ultimately, in inspection report, opposite parties admitted the defect in the washing machine in question. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not repairing the washing machine in question of the complainant despite his repeated requests and obtaining Annual Maintenance Contract from the opposite parties.
Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to repair the washing machine in question of the complainant within 30 days after receipt of copy of this order free of cost/without charging any amount from him and make it in perfectly working order.
The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
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
