Delhi

East Delhi

CC/237/2015

SUNITA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KBM ELEC. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2016

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.          237/ 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  22/04/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 06/10/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          10/10/2016   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

 

Mrs. Sunita Gupta, adult 

w/o Sh Ashok Kumar Gupta

R/o 146 C Pocket F

Mayur Vihar Phase 2, Delhi 110091……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s KBM Electronics

1/32  Lalita Park Laxmi Nagar

Main Vikas Marg  Delhi 110092

 

2-The Manager,

SM Enterprises

F-37, Gali no. 13, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092

 

3-IFB Industries Ltd

Home appliance Div.

L1 Verna Electronic City

Verna Salecte Goa 403722………………………….………………………  Opponents

 

Complainant……………………………………In  Person

Opponent ……....……………………………..Ex Parte

 

Quorum  –        Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                    

Complainant purchased automatic IFB washing machine from OP1 vide cash memo no. 04081/14-15 dated 20/07/2014. Annexed photo copy of bill.

The said washing machine was not working properly, so complainant lodged complaint to OP1, who advised to complaint on company’s customer care no. The service engineer attended and told complainant that machine fan belt was creating problem, so the defect was rectified.

Later machine developed problem again, so complainant again lodged complaint with OP2. The service engineer attended the complaint and informed that machine’s tub was not working properly, so need to be replaced. Engineer gave assurance for replacement, but did not turn up. Complainant stated that her clothes had been burned due to defective machine.

So, she filed this complaint and claimed for replacing the washing machine or refund the amount paid for washing machine a sum of Rs 33,000/-. She also claimed compensation of Rs 5000/- for harassment and Rs 2000/- as the cost of proceedings.

Notices were served, but OPs did not appear nor submitted their written statement or evidences. Despite of opportunities given to OPs, when they failed to appear, case was preceded Ex Parte against OPs. Complainant filed her Ex Parte evidences on affidavit which were on record.

Arguments were heard and order was reserved.

We have perused all the facts and evidences filed by complainant. It was evident that the said washing machine was purchased on 20/07/2014 and within 6 month of its working, machine developed problems. It was also admitted by OP3 as per emails reverted on dated 21/01/2015 and 05/02/2015. It was admitted by OP, through email that the said washing machine developed defects within one year of standard warranty. Despite of lodging complaints, defects were not rectified fully. It was also seen that the complainant had alleged burning of her costly cloths during washing. But, complainant did not file any evidence to prove that the tub was defective and her costly cloths got burned. Reverted emails by OP proved that the said machine had developed problems, but no service rectified proof was given by OP2.

Hence, we come to the conclusion that complainant has proved deficiency in services against OP 2 and 3. As OP1 was a seller, so there were no allegations against him and no deficiency in service was seen.

We allow this complaint and pass the following order -

1. OP 2 will provide prompt service to rectify defects within 30 days from receiving of this order and hand over in good working condition to complainant, in time essence.
2. OP3 shall give extended warranty of 06 month from the date of handing over defect free machine to complainant.
3. If failed to comply the order, OP 3 shall refund the cost of washing machine sum of Rs 33,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint till realized.
4. We also award compensation of a sum of Rs 5000/- as cost of harassment caused to complainant due to improper service by OP2. This award will include the cost of litigation also.      

 

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

Mrs –Harpreet Kaur                                                                                  (Dr) P N Tiwari

Member                                                                                                     Member                                                                                    

                                                 Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                             President