Haryana

Ambala

CC/191/2014

SANDHYA MAKKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB - Opp.Party(s)

ULLAS MAKKAR REPRESENTATIVE

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

             Complaint Case No.    : 191 of 2014

Date of Institution       : 25.07.2014

              Date of Decision         :25.07.2016

Sandhya Makkar W/o Ashok Makkar R/o 94, Gandhi Nagar, Behind  B.D. Flour Mill, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

                                                                                                                                                           ……Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                  Versus

1.         IFB Service Centre, SCO-632, Ram Bagh Road, Above Bagga Advocate, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

2.         IFB Registered Office, 14 Taratolla Road, Kolkatta-700088, West Bengal, India.                                                           

……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. Ullass Makkar authorized representative for complainant.

                        Sh. Naveen Chawla, Adv. counsel  for Ops.                       

ORDER.

1.                     Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that she purchased an IFB Washing Machine (5Kg. front load) on 18.05.2008 in a sum of Rs.22,000/- from OP No.1 wherein  a problem developed in the front load compartment which completely halted its operations, so complainant reported a complaint to service centre of OP on 27.12.2013 and they  provided an estimate of Rs.3500/-, accordingly the parts  were  replaced on 08.01.2014 for an amount of Rs.3454/-. It has been further contended that after 15 days, the machine started giving noise & huge vibrations, hence, the matter was again reported to the customer care of OP on 04.02.2014 vide complaint No.12342719 & on 02.05.2014 vide complaint no.12877494 but of no avail, as such, a legal notice dated 26.05.2014 was served upon the OP as a result of which, a representative of OP inspected the machine and bolted some new nuts in the machine.  Again after sometime, the OP told that the two shockers and motor of the machine are damaged and it would cost around Rs.2000/- but the complainant did not agree and filed the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer para of the complaint.  

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint & suppression of material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and the washing machine does not cover under the warranty period.  On merits, it has been urged that the washing machine was not covered under the warranty terms rather the complainant had availed Annual Maintenance Contract for two years and the washing machine is being  maintained under AMC.  It has been denied that  the Ops were served with the alleged legal notice rather the issuance of the job card dated 02.06.2014  has been admitted which reveals that the complainant had lodged complaint on 02.06.2014 and prompt services were provided to the complainant qua defect of Tub Front Ring, free of cost.  It has been further urged that the machine  is properly working and has been utilized by the complainant for the last more than 6 years continuously. Rest of the contents of complainant have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove complainant’s version,  representative of complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandhya Makkar as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Johri, Executive Taxation of OP company  alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-3 and closed their evidence.

4.                     We have heard the parties to the complaint & perused the record very carefully.  The main grouse of the complainant against the OPs is that they did not provide him proper services despite Annual Maintenance Contract with them and charged Rs.3454/- as cost of the replaced parts but despite that the machine did not work properly rather the washing machine is having some inherent defect which could not be rectified by the Ops as well as the Ops have remained deficient in providing proper services to the complainant.

                        To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record purchase bill of the washing machine in question as Annexure C-2 and other bills regarding payment of Rs.3454/- on 08.01.2014, Rs.1686/- on 22.05.2008 and Rs.282/- on 01.07.2014 made to Ops as Annexures C-3 to C-5.  Complainant has also placed on record a purchase bill dated 09.07.2014 of Rs.22,700/- (Annexure C-6) whereby he has purchased  a new washing machine of whirlpool company  due to not non-rectification of machine in question by Ops.

                        During the course of proceedings, OP moved an application for inspection of the washing machine in question which was allowed on 15.04.2015 and Principal, ITI Ambala City was directed to depute Expert Person/Instructor in the concerned Trade for inspection qua working of washing machine in question. Accordingly, Gurcharan Sharma, G.I., ITI, Ambala City inspected the machine and observed the following facts:-

1. Electricity Consumption is normal.
2. Machine vibrates heavily with noise during working hence the working condition of machine is adverse or not proper.

5.                     At the very outset, from perusal of documents Annexure C-3 & C-5, it  reveals that the washing machine in question remained defective on 08.01.2014 & 01.07.2014 wherein the parts were replaced & serviced by the Ops after taking charges  from complainant but perusal of report submitted by Expert person Sh. Gurcharan Sharma, Govt. Instructor deputed by the Principal, ITI, at the direction of the Forum, depicts that Machine vibrates heavily with noise during working hence the working conditions of machine is adverse or not proper wherefrom it is concluded that the complainant was being harassed by the functioning of defective machine so he had to purchase a new washing machine of whirpool company vide Annexure C-6.

                        In view of the facts discussed above,  we hold that the Ops remained deficient in providing proper service to the complainant as well as the product is having some inherent defect.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and we direct the OPs to comply with the following directions jointly & severally within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. To return Rs.5500/- to the complainant which  he paid as repair & service charges etc. to Ops vide bills Annexures C-3 to C-5.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.3000/-  as compensation  for harassment & mental agony  etc.
3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation etc.

                        Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced in open Court.25.07.2016                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                                  (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                     PRESIDENT                

 

 

                            Sd/-

    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                MEMBER