DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 482 of 7.12.2016

                                      Decided on:    7.6.2017

Mrs.Rajinder Khetarpal aged 58 years w/o Devinder Mohan Khetarpal r/o Tej Enclave, Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Jindal Electronics, Inside Patiala Gate, Nabha District Patiala through its Prop./Partner

2.       L.G.Electronics India Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur-Kasna Road Greater Noida, U.P.,India through its M.D.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.

                                      Sh.K.S.Rajpal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.           

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

                   The complainant purchased one washing machine bearing Model No.T8068TEELI, 7Kg. fully automatic, from OP no.1, for an amount of Rs.26,500/-  on 31.10.2015. It is averred that within a few days of the said purchase, the washing machine started giving problem and the complainant approached OP no.1.After a few days a technician of the OP visited the house of the complainant and gave an assurance that the defect in the washing machine would be removed but the said technician never turned back. Thereafter, the complainant through toll free number vide reference No.RNA 161015018461 dated 15.10.2016 made a complaint and one Mr.Gurpreet , assured the complainant that some person of OP will visit the premises of the complainant but nobody ever visited the house of the complainant to rectify the defect till the filing of the present complaint. It is further averred that the said washing machine did not wash the clothes properly and also some clothes were damaged badly, due to which the complainant was unable  to use the said washing machine. Since the problem occurred during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same, which they failed to do  and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. At last the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act)1986, for a direction to the OPs to refund the cost of the washing machine i.e. Rs.26,500/- alongwith Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.1100/- as cost of litigation expenses or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit.

2.                On notice, OP no.1  failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. While OP no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. In its reply, the only plea taken by the OP is that the complainant was not aware of the functioning of the product and the same was mis-handled by the complainant. The engineer  of OP no.2 visited the complainant on 1.8.2016, 23.9.2016, 1.10.2016 and 22.10.2016 and every time the engineer explained the complainant regarding working of the washing machine but every time the complainant operated the machine and mishandled the same with the result that the complainant could not get the proper result of the product. It is further submitted that when the complainant again made a complaint, registered vide complaint No.RNA-161015018461, the same was attended by Er.Jarnail Singh and Amarinder Singh of Ludhiana and they observed that there was no defect in the washing machine. Again both the engineers explained the complainant regarding the functioning of the machine. It is  further submitted that if the complainant is not satisfied with the functioning of the washing machine he might bring the said washing machine at the service centre situated at H.No.67-B,Saraba Nagar, Lane-1, Grid Road, Patiala and the OP shall repair the washing machine without charging any cost from the complainant. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OP no.2 and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint with heavy cost.

3.                In support her case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, her sworn affidavit alongwith documents |Exs.C1 to Ex.C6 and her counsel closed the evidence.

4.                Whereas counsel for OP no.2 tendered in evidence sworn affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Singh, Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.

5.                OP no.2 filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the complainant in person and the ld.counsel for Op no.2 and also gone through the evidence on record.

6.                Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the washing machine from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.26500/- on 31.10.2015.The said product was under two years warranty. It is submitted by the complainant that from the very beginning the said washing machine started giving problem and complainant approached OP no.1 but the OPs failed to rectify the same. Whereas the only plea taken by Op no.2 in its reply is that twice , two engineers visited the complainant and both times no defect was found in the product. Rather the complainant did not k now how to use the product whereby he was unable to get the proper results. Today, during the course of arguments also, ld counsel for Op no.2 argued that there is no defect in the washing machine. The only problem is that the complainant does not know how to use the product. Whereas ld.counsel for the complainant argued that his client is an educated lady and she fully knows  how to use the same. However, it is an established fact that the problem occurred in the washing machine during warranty period and the OPs are bound to rectify the same.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to  OP No.2 rectify the problem in the washing machine, upto the satisfaction of the complainant and if, that is not possible to replace the same with the new one of the same make with requisite warranty. OP no.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.7000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant, which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. The order be complied by OP no.2 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 7.6. 2017       

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER