Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The   complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that he had purchased one fully automatic washing machine of Onida Tumble-50 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Bill No. 2270 dated 04.12.2018 for Rs.14,000/-. Opposite Party No.2 is the service provider and Opposite Party No.3 is the manufacturer of the said product. The complainant alleges that after the purchase of about seven months, the machine in question started giving trouble. Some times, its timer got stuck on being complained to Opposite Party No.1 who occasionally arranged for getting it checked and corrected through Opposite Party No.2. After few days its capacitor got blown and again on complaint, it was attended by Opposite Party No.2 and they told the complainant that the model of the washing machine is discontinued by the manufacturer company and that is why the capacitor is not available and assured that they will fix the washing machine of complainant by some other ‘jugaad’ or spare parts and after that the product in question continuously started giving trouble thereby stopping a number of times during wash cycle.  As such, in the month of November, 2019 the washing machine in question stopped completely. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests and complaints to all the Opposite Parties either to repair the same or to replace, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.   In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and the Complainant left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to repair/ replace the product in question or to  refund its price amounting to Rs.14,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till its actual realisation and also to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental tension ad harassment and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.

Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of  their grievances.

2.       Opposite Party No.1 appeared in person and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party  No.1 and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. It is submitted that admittedly, the complainant purchased the product in question from Opposite Party No.1, but there is no deficiency in service on their part. After sale, the services are to be solely provided by the manufactures of the product. However, Opposite Party No.1 always assisted the complainant in communicating the fault to authorised service personal of manufacturer company of Fully Automatic Washing Machine and they assured that the defective parts of the product will be arranged, but all in vain and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and the complaint may please be dismissed against Opposite Party No.1 who is only seller of the product.   

3.       On the other hand, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and as such, they were proceeded against exparte  

4.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit  of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, copy of postal receipts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party No.1 did not produce or tender any document and the evidence of Opposite Party No.1 was closed by order of this District Consumer Commission.

6.       We have heard the complainant as well as Opposite Party No.1 and also gone through the documents placed on record.

7.       During the course of arguments, the Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.1   has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that after about 7 months from the date of purchase of the washing machine in question, it started giving trouble, but despite repeated requests and complaints, none of the Opposite Parties bothered to repair or rectify its defect and at last refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 has contended that they are only the seller of the product in question and after the sale of the product, the services are to be solely provided by the manufactures of the product. However, Opposite Party No.1 always assisted the complainant in communicating the fault to authorised service personal of manufacturer company of Fully Automatic Washing Machine and they assured that the defective parts of the product will be arranged, but all in vain. But however, despite serving the notice upon the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, they did not bother to defend its case. To prove the aforesaid contention, the complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, copy of postal receipts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings.  In this way, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  have no defence to offer or defend the complaint. 

8.       So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged  evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that  Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by not  repair the product in question of the complainant.  On this count, the Complainant has prayed for  the refund of the price of the  product amounting to Rs.14,000/-  or other relief which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to such extent appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, since the product in question has been purchased by the complainant on 04.12.2018 and atleast might have used to some extent and about more than 3½ years have already elapsed and accordingly, the   ends of justice would  be fully met if the half of the price of the machine in question is refunded to the complainant.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against  Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  are  jointly or severally directed to refund the price of the product in question amounting to Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousands only) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to  get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission.   Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.  

Announced in Open Commission.