CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.505/2012
SH. ANIL KUMAR JHA,
HOUSE NO.610,
WARD NO.3, MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI-110030
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S I.F.B. INDUSTRIES LTD.
REGD. OFFICE A-56, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEW DELHI-110020
- I.F.B. INDUSTRIES LTD.
REGD. OFFICE NO.14, TARABOLLA ROAD,
KOLKATTA-700088
………….. RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:22.12.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he purchased IFB washing machine from OPs for a sum of Rs.13,200/- on 30.11.2008 with extended warranty of two years i.e. from 06.12.10 to 05.12.12. It is stated that on 07.09.12, the washing machine was found to be defective and the same stopped working on 09.9.12. Complaint regarding the defect was made to the dealer i.e. OP-1 on 11.9.12 vide complaint No.10091173. It is submitted that engineer of the company visited the premises of the complainant on 13.10.12 and checked the machine but could not remove the defect and said that he would talk about the defect to the Senior Engineer of the company and would come back again to do the needful. Thereafter number of phone calls were made to the company by his son and daughter but nothing happened. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
It is prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.13,200/- being price of the washing machine, Rs.20,680/- for laundry bill, compensation @ Rs.500/- per day from 11.09.12 for mental agony, Rs.1000/- towards cost of telephone bill., Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
OPs in the reply have not disputed that a complaint was received from complainant. It is submitted that a technician of OP visited on 24.9.12 and found the cultch assembly of washing machine was making some light sound but washing machine was functional and OP tried to contact the complainant to replace the required part if the complainant so desired but there was no response to their phone call due to which call was cancelled on 23.10.12.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and carefully perused the record.
It is admitted fact that the complaint was received on 11.09.12 about the defect in the machine. It is stated on behalf of OPs that technician visited on 24.9.12 and found that cultch assembly of washing machine was making some light sound but the machine was functional. However complainant denied about the visit of the technician on 24.09.12, rather stated that an engineer of the company visited on 13.10.12 and did not remove the defect and left the place by saying that he will talk to senior engineer of company about the defect and would come back and thereafter nobody turned up. We are not convinced with the plea of OPs that they have not received the complaint after 11.09.12. The fact remains that the defect was not rectified. There was no question of any response from complainant. It was duty of OP to repair the machine of the complainant. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for OP that in fact warranty was expiring on 05.12.12 hence this false complaint was filed by levelling false allegation that machine stopped functioning on 09.09.12 i.e. just three months prior to expiry of warranty period. We are not convinced with the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for OPs. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
However since the matter is three years old, no useful purpose will be served by directing OPs to repair the machine. Interest of justice will suffice if a compensation of Rs.4000/- is paid to the complainant by OPs alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
