Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/389/2019

Satbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex tech. - Opp.Party(s)

in person

14 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. :389 of 2019

                  Date of Institution             : 18.06.2019

                                                           Date of Decision               : 14.12.2023

 

 

Satbir son of Sh. Tara Chand R/o  VPO Dinod, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Intex Technologies (India). Limited, A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its Chairman.

 

2. M/s Sanjay Electronics through its Manager Naya Bazar, Bhiwani-127021 Haryana.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Satyavir Singh, Legal Aid Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2.

OP No.1 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a Washing Machine, Model W/MINTEX SA 80 CR (8 Kg.) from OP No.2 on 11.12.2018 in a sum of Rs.10,500/-. The machine was manufactured by OP No.1. It is alleged that on 08.04.2019, the body of washing machine alongwith clothes got burnt due to manufactured in the washing machine. So, complaint was made on that day, to OP No.1. Upon which, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mechanic checked and assured for further needful done. Again complaint was made on 23.05.2019 followed by reminder dated 05.06.2019 but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging defects in the product and  deficiency in service on the part of OPs resulting into mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss, as such, directing them to refund Rs.10,500/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum or to replace the washing machine. Further to pay Rs.1.00 lac on account of harassment, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 OP No.2 appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, cause of action, mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, sale of washing machine by it has been admitted. The OP has submitted that on receiving a complaint from complainant, he was advised to take the machine to authorized service centre of the company but he complained OP No.1 on customer care center and thus the present complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate the answering OP.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on its part.

3.                 OP No.1 did not appear despite issuance of registered notice, as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.02.2020.

4.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence.

5.                 No evidence produced on behalf of OP No.2 despite availing sufficient opportunities. Hence, evidence of OP No.2 was closed by Court vide order dated 12.04.2023.

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record minutely.

7.                 At the outset, the grievance of the complainant is that the washing  machine so purchased him from OP No.2 became defective after about 4 months of its purchase. But despite approaching the OP’s service center many times, they did not repair the machine. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the Ops are deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant. Further, the washing machine was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by OPs, as such, the Ops are liable to replace the washing machine in question alongwith compensation for harassment and other expenses.

8.                 On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that on receiving complaint with regard to alleged defects, complainant was advised to take the machine at the service center of OP company.  The counsel has argued that OP no.1 sold the machine in such a condition as was received from OP No.1 manufacturer. As such, no deficiency can be attributed against the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.

9.                 From purchase bill (Annexure C-1), it is proved on record that complainant purchased the washing machine in question from OP No.2 in a sum of Rs.10,500/- having two years warranty. Annexure C-2, photograph reveals that the washing machine was burnt and vide Annexure C-3 & C-4, complainant approached the OPs qua the defective washing machine. Complainant to strengthen his case has placed on record, his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A which corroborates the version of present complaint.

10.               After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that the washing machine became defective in a very short span of time, within its warranty period, which is not expected generally. However, the OPs also did not provide proper services to the complainant which amount to gross negligence and unfair trade practice on their part resulting into harassment as well as monetary loss to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of order:-

1. To refund the purchase amount of the washing machine to the tune of Rs.10,500/- (Rs. Ten thousand five hundred) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its actual realization, subject to deposition of the old/defective washing machine by complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) on account of harassment suffered by complainant at the hands of OPs.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

Announced.           

Dated: 14.12.2023