Delhi

East Delhi

CC/221/2020

A. RASHEED QURESHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

KBM ELE. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 221/2020

 

	A.RASHEED QURESHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PLOT NO.D-22, RESIDENTIAL SECTOR B-1, TRONICA CITY, GHAZIABAD-201103	….Complainant
Versus
1	KBM ELECTRONICS MAIN VIKAS MARG, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI -  110092 (THROUGH ITS MANAGER, MR. MISHRA)	……OP1
2	SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. HEAD OFFICE: 6TH FLOOR, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI – 110001	……OP2

 

Date of Institution	:	02.11.2020
Judgment Reserved on	:	25.07.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	25.07.2023

 

                

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

By this judgment this commission shall dispose of the present complaint with respect to the deficiency in service and selling of the defective washing machine to the complainant by the OP and not rectifying the defects in product.

1. Succinctly, the facts of the case that complainant has purchased a semi automatic Samsung washing machine for home use from OP1 on 13.03.2020 against the invoice and soon after the delivery, the said machine started malfunctioning in the month of March itself. However, due to Covid and lock down, the first complaint could be lodged in June 2020 only. The spin tub used for drying clothes stopped rotating. The service engineer came and have pointed out another defect of broken plastic base. Which was a major break down in the product, which could only happen in transportation and not only this he  had to pay cash of Rs.1302/- against receipt for repairing of spin tub.  However, the broken plastic base was not repaired due to very high charge. Soon, thereafter the waste water pipe got choked and again on 27.09.2020, service engineer visited and repaired the machine. Complainant submits that just three days after the second visit of the service engineer, the main wash tub was broken from beneath and motor stopped working.  Despite several calls and email communication made by the complainant, both OPs did not respond. Complainant sent legal notice to both i.e. OP1 and OP2 but of no avail. Complainant submits that OPs are deliberately avoiding services. On 06.10.2020, the service engineer came and raised a bill or estimate of Rs.5500/- for repair of several parts of the washing machine which the Complainant refused to pay.  He further submits that his frequent requests emails for the replacement of the said washing machine were not entertained by any of the OPs rather both of them kept shuffling the burden on one another.
2. Complainant further submits that because of malfunctioning of the washing machine, his wife had to wash clothes by hands, and on 14.07.2020 she slipped and had fracture in her wrist due to which she had a permanent defect which is due to the negligence and deficiency of service by OP jointly and severally. Complainant further submits that he has suffered physical pain, harassment, financial loss due to gross negligence, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice by OPs, &  claims refunf of the product alongwith compensation, cost of litigation, payment of medical bills.
3. Upon notice, OP1 did not appear and as such was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 11.10.22.   
4. OP2 filed its written statement but failed to file the evidence and the opportunity to file the evidence was closed on 16.12.2022 and he was proceeded ex parte.
5. The complainant has filed his Evidence and has placed on record:-  

1. The copy of the invoice dated 13.03.2020, EXC1;
2. The copy of serial model number EXC2;
3. The copy of photographs, EXC3;
4. The copy of cash receipt of Rs.1302/- dated 27.08.2020, EXC4;
5. The copy of bill for service of damage part EXC5;
6. The copy of communications, EXC6;
7. The copy of legal notice, EXC7;
8. The copy of bill dated 06.10.2020 EXC8;
9. The copy of photographs, showing damage EXC9;
10. The copy of Prescription of Doctors EXC10

6. The Commission has perused the evidence and documents on record filed by the complainant. This is noticed that within few months of purchase, the new washing machine (within warranty) has started giving the problem and the very first complaint was lodged in July, i.e. after four months of the purchase. The submission of the complainant that the complaint could not be lodged earlier because of the Covid period lock down is corroborated with the facts and circumstances, prevalent at that point of time in the country and therefore the explanation, is taken as correct. The receipt dated 27.08.2020 of Rs.1302/- and 06.10.2020 of Rs.5500/- show that payment given by the complainant for repair of the broken part of the washing machine. The service record/job sheets present on record show that machine was suffering from some inherent defects. It is also observed that since the date of purchase i.e. 13.03.2020 till 06.10.2020, within the span of seven months of the purchase, the complainant has got the machine repaired three times and paid a total amount of Rs.6802/- which itself is the proof that the new product was suffering from the defect and was not functioning properly.  A genuine customer purchases a branded new product with the expectation that it would be free from all defects and would serve his purpose. The defects in the new product itself show that OP1 and OP2 failed to give a perfect product to the complainant as per their promise and thus they are deficient in their service to provide the complainant a defect free/ workable product.

Although, there is no opinion of any expert with respect to the extent of damage to the washing machine, but apparently, there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs with respect to provide the services to the complainant.  

7. Considering the sufficient evidence on record, with respect to the defective product, this Commission deems it fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case, that ends of justice would meet if the money paid for the product be returned to the complainant and the product be returned to the OP.
8. Therefore, 0P1 and OP2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of the product, i.e., Rs.9000/- to the complainant at the rate of 6% interest from the date of filing the complaint which is 02.11.2020 and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, to-words harassment, sufferings, mental agony that caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on their part which shall also include the litigation cost. The claim of the complainant with respect to the medical bills is not sustainable as there is no evidence on record to show that the fracture caused to the complainant’s wife is due to the non- functioning of the machine.
9. The above said order be complied within 30 days from the date of the order by the OP1 and OP2 failing which they will be liable to pay the interest on the above stated amount at the rate of 9% pa from the date of filing the complaint till final realization by the complainant.
10. The file be consigned to record after providing the copy of the order to the parties as per CPA rules.
11. The order contains 06 Pages each bears our signature. 

          Pronounced on – 25.07.2023