BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 67 of 2016        

                                                          Date of Institution:          29.2.2016

                                                          Date of Decision:     09.02.2017         

Hans Raj (Retd. S.I.) son of Sh. Ami Chand, resident of H.No. 884 Shiv Nagar, Begu Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, Haryana.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

J.P. Brothers Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Prop/ Partner.

                                                                              ……… Opposite party.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

   Before:              SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                             SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. S.S. Kathuria, Advocate for complainant.

                     Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

          In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one IFB washing machine (front loading fully automatic) from opposite party on 15.4.2011 for a sum of Rs.22000/- and at that time op had given five years guarantee of the machine. After using the machine for about two years, some problem occurred in the washing machine as it was not washing the clothes properly and used to make a great noise. The complainant approached op and op got repaired the machine. Then about one year back the washing machine was not working properly and some defect occurred. The complainant again approached op and op assured him that there is some major problem and they will send it to the company for the replacement but after lapse of six months when complainant visited the shop of op for getting replacement of washing machine, then op told him that he will repair it within a week. When the complainant asked him that six months back, op had given assurance to replace it and now op is going to repair it then op asked that washing machine will not be replaced and it will be repaired and op had backed out from his assurance. It is further averred that when complainant insisted op to get replaced it, the op asked him that “throw out the IFB washing machine outside, I will not replace it.” At that time, one Mr. Ram Kumar friend of complainant was also with him. The op neither got replaced the washing machine nor repaired it despite retaining it for a long time and has also refused to provide cash memo or bill to complainant and has been putting the matter on one pretext or the other and finally on 28.11.2015 has refused to replace it. The complainant also got issued a legal notice upon op on 29.11.2016 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and filed reply asserting therein that complainant is not a consumer and present complaint does not fall within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer and service center of washing machine. The answering op is only authorized dealer for selling the products of manufacturing company. The manufacturing company through their marketing division has also provided care center for the convenience of their prudent customers.  Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.

3.                The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of warranty card Ex.C2, Ex.C3, Ex.C4, legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6 and acknowledgment Ex.C7. On the other hand, op tendered his affidavit Ex.R1.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                The opposite party has not specifically denied the allegations of the complainant that five years guarantee of the washing machine as alleged by complainant was not given and that he did not keep the washing machine of the complainant for six months with the assurance of replacement of the same with new one. Despite keeping the washing machine for six months when the complainant visited to the op, then op asked him that washing machine will be repaired within further one week. Within such a long period of six months, the grievance of the complainant could have been redressed by the opposite party and op could get it repaired within that period but has failed to do so and now trying to absolve from his liability under the garb that manufacturer and service center have not been impleaded as a party by the complainant. The opposite party has been deficient in service by keeping the washing machine for six months with him and within this period neither he has got replaced the washing machine nor got repaired the same from service center.

6.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to get the washing machine in question of the complainant repaired and to make it defect free after replacement of defective parts, if any free of costs and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant including litigation expenses. The complainant will have to take the washing machine to the op. This order should be complied by the opposite party within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.                                       President,

Dated:09.02.2017.                          Member.      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.