Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/385

Om Dutt Shashtri - Complainant(s)

Versus

J. S Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

Tulsi Dass

01 Apr 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

C. C . No.                  385 of 2017

Date of Institution :        1.12.2017

Date of Decision :          1.04.2019

 Om Dutt Shastri son of Vishawnath Sastri, r/o Dogar Basti, Street No. 2, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                         .....Complainant

Versus

1. Proprietor J S Electronics, Near Axis Bank, Circular Road. Faridkot.
2. Proprietor Haba Telecare K-2 Market, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd Company, 20 to 24, 2^nd Floor, Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF 9 HV, Gurgaon Haryana 12202 through its Managing Director.

                                    ....Opposite Parties(Ops)

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Present:       Sh Tulsi Das, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective washing machine and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs 15000/- as litigation expenses.

cc no.- 385 of 2017

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a washing machine make Samsung from OP-1 for Rs13,600/-vide bill no. 5349 dated 2.12.2016. At the time of purchasing the said machine OP-1 gave warranty and assured that it is of very good quality. When complainant used the said washing machine at home, he noticed that instead of getting drained water from drying tub moves to the washing tub. There was some technical defect in said machine and therefore, complainant took the washing machine to OP-1, who kept the same with him for two months and returned the said washing machine to complainant saying that now all defects have been removed and now there is no problem in it, but when complainant again used the said washing machine, he again observed the earlier defect which was not removed by OP-1. Complainant again reported the matter to OP-1, who advised him to make complaint regarding said defect to the customer care number of OPs. Accordingly, complainant got registered his complaint with OP-3 on 21.08.2017 and thereafter, mechanic of OP-2 visited the house of complainant and tried to rectify the said defect, but he could not make it defect free. On 21.11.2017, complainant again lodged his complaint with OP-3 and then, Gurpreet Singh mechanic of OP-2 who tried to remove the defect from said machine but failed to correct the machine and finally refused to repair the same saying, complainant is free to do whatever he likes. Thereafter, complainant again approached OP-1 and requested him to replace the said washing machine, but OP-1 kept lingering on the matter and then, refused to make replacement. Complainant made many requests to Ops to repair or replace the same, but all his efforts to get it repaired or replaced bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking

cc no.- 385 of 2017

direction to Ops to pay Rs 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 7.12.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed reply wherein submitted that allegations levelled by complainant are incorrect and there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, it is admitted by OP-1 that complainant purchased the said washing machine from them, but have totally denied all the other allegations of complainant. it is averred that water from the drier tub does not go to washing tub. It is further averred that complainant never approached them regarding any problem in his washing machine and moreover, answering OP never advised him to call on the customer care services of OP-2 and OP-3. Allegation of complainant that OP-1 kept the washing machine with them is also refuted. Complainant never approached answering OP regarding any defect in his washing machine nor he made any request for replacement of same. It is further averred that no cause of action arises against them and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              OP-2 and OP-3 filed reply through counsel wherein took preliminary objections that allegations levelled by complainant are false, frivolous and incorrect. It is averred that there is no defect in said washing machine and it has been working properly. It is submitted that complainant lodged the first

 

 

cc no.- 385 of 2017

complaint regarding problem in washing machine on 21.08.2017, which was duly entertained by the Service Engineer. There was no problem in washing machine regarding spinning and complainant was given knowledge about spinning and he was satisfied with its working. Second complaint regarding washing machine was lodged by complainant on 11.01.2018 which was also duly attended by their Service Engineer and problem reported by complainant was duly rectified to his entire satisfaction. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and asserted that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. Complainant made complaint about washing machine in question for two times and both the times his complaint was duly entertained. Present complaint is an abuse of process of law. It is further averred that complaints lodged by complainant during the warranty period and after the warranty period have been fully attended and reported problems are duly rectified. Complainant purchased the said machine on 2.12.2016 and warranty period of machine in question expired on 2.12.2017 and they have attended the complaints of  complainants reported by him even after the expiry of warranty period. moreover, no expert evidence is brought forward by complainant to prove his case. Washing machine in question has been working perfectly and is being used by complainant till date. However, on merits, OP-2 and OP-3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and averred that as and when complaint was lodged by complainant, Ops duly attended the same, and now, he has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive to get undue advantage from OPs. Moreover, no legitimate ground is set out to entitle the complainant for replacement of said machine or refund of price of washing machine because defects arisen in machine have been repaired. It is submitted that complainant has

cc no.- 385 of 2017

not produced any expert evidence to prove his case. Replacement or refund is not permissible as replacement or refund is permissible only in case when defect developed within the period of warranty is not repairable, but in the present case, defects have been completely removed. There is no manufacturing defect in said article and replacement is permissible only of defective parts. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought have been refuted being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                           The ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Jarnail Singh as Ex OP-1/1 on behalf of OP-1 and then tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Boss as Ex.OP-2, 3/1 for OP-2 and 3 and then evidence of Ops was closed by order of the Forum dated 19.03.2019 as despite availing several opportunities, OPs did not conclude their evidence.

8                                               We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

9                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a washing machine make Samsung from OP-1 for Rs13,600/- on 2.12.2016. OP-1 gave warranty and assured that it is of very good quality, but when complainant used the said washing machine at home, he noticed that instead of getting drained water from drying tub moves to the washing tub. There was

cc no.- 385 of 2017

some technical defect in said machine. Complainant took the washing machine to OP-1, who kept it for two months and returned the said washing machine to him saying all defects have been removed and there is no problem in it, but when complainant again used the said washing machine, he again observed the earlier defects which were not removed by OP-1. He again reported the matter to OP-1 and on his advise, got registered his complaint with OP-3 on 21.08.2017 and thereafter, mechanic of OP-2 visited the house of complainant and tried to rectify the said defect, but he could not make it defect free. On 21.11.2017, complainant again lodged his complaint with OP-3 and then, Gurpreet Singh mechanic of OP-2 tried to repair the said machine but failed to correct the machine and finally refused to repair the same saying, complainant is free to do whatever he likes. Thereafter, complainant approached OP-1 and requested him to replace the said washing machine, but OP-1 kept putting him off on one pretext or the other and then, refused to make replacement. Repeated requests made by complainant to get it repaired or replaced bore no fruit and he suffered huge harassment and mental agony due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Prayer for accepting the present complaint is made. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 2.

10                                            To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 averred that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and he has not come to the Forum with clean hands and therefore, complaint filed by him on false grounds is not maintainable in this Forum and is liable to be dismissed. Ld Counsel for OPs disclosed that complainant never approached them regarding any complaint in his washing machine and also denied that they kept the machine of complainant for two three

cc no.- 385 of 2017

months for repair purpose. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                        Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3 argued that there is no defect in said washing machine and it has been working properly. It is admitted that complainant lodged the first complaint regarding problem in washing machine on 21.08.2017, and second complaint regarding washing machine was lodged by him on 11.01.2018. All the complaints lodged by complainant during the warranty period and even after the expiry of warranty period regarding defect in his washing machine have been duly attended and defect in said machine have been removed and now it is working perfectly. Their Service Engineer has duly rectified the washing machine of complainant to his entire satisfaction. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Complaints lodged by complainant during the warranty period and after the warranty period have been fully attended and reported problems are duly rectified. Complainant purchased the said machine on 2.12.2016 and warranty period of same expired on 2.12.2017 and they have duly attended the complaints of  complainants which are reported by him even after the expiry of warranty period. No expert evidence is brought on record by complainant to prove his case. Washing machine in question has been working perfectly and is being used by complainant till date. There is no manufacturing defect in said article and replacement is permissible only of defective parts. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

12                                       We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a washing machine make Samsung for Rs.13,600/-from OPs against proper bill Ex C-2. Said article became defective and complainant made complaint with OPs on

cc no.- 385 of 2017

their helpline number on 21.08.2017 and 21.11.2017 but OPs failed to remove the defect.  Grievance of complainant is that despite his repeated requests, OPs did not replace the washing machine in question. In reply, stand of OPs is that there is no manufacturing defect in said washing machine and on complaint of complainant they sent a Service Engineer to remove the defect. OPs admitted that complainant reported problem in his washing machine two times and they have provided due and requisite services in repairing the same to the satisfaction of complainant.

13                                      From the careful perusal of record placed on file and arguments advanced by parties, it is observed that washing machine purchased by complainant had some defect and he duly reported the matter to OPs. OPs themselves admitted in their version that complainant lodged his complaint with them on 21.08.2017 and 21.11.2017 and they did their best to remove the defect from machine and to rectify the same. Allegation of complainant is that despite his repeated requests, OPs failed to rectify the problem in washing machine that water from drying tub rushes towards the washing tub and it does not get drained. Though OPs have tried to remove the defect but failed to do so. There seems to deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not making the washing machine defect free as per satisfaction of complainant. There is no dispute regarding purchase of unit. It is also admitted by Ops that washing machine in question had some defect. Ops have expressed their willingness to provide their best services and to repair the machine in question upto the satisfaction of complainant.

14                                  In the light of above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is some defect in washing machine in question and OPs have been deficient in providing services to complainant and there is trade mal practice on their part. We are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by

cc no.- 385 of 2017

complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2, 3 and it is dismissed against OP-1. OP-2 and 3 are hereby directed to provide efficient services by making effective repairs to the washing machine of complainant and replace the defective parts, if any without any cost up to the entire satisfaction of complainant. They are further directed to pay Rs.2,500/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of its receipt, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 1.04.2019          

                                      (Parampal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                        Member                                   President