BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.69 of 2017
Date of Instt. 09.03.2017
Date of Decision: 28.11.2018
Smt. Meena W/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar R/o H.No.B-VIII 268/5 Vij Nagar, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. L. G Service Centre, 148/1, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar, Through its Manager.
2. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, A Wing (3rd Floor), D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi-110017, Through its Manager.
3. Aarco Electronics, Gem House, G. T. Road, Jalandhar, Through its Manager.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Robin Budhiraja, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 and 3 exparte.
Sh. Satnam Singh, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased one Washing Machine from OP No.3 on 01.01.2013, vide Invoice No.Aej/12-13/2641, Model No.LG W/M T801A for Rs.29,200/-. The complainant has faced problem regarding this Washing Machine on 24.12.2016 as the machine was not working properly and the complainant made a complaint to the OP No.1, vide Complaint No.RNP 161224024296. The representative from the service centre has visited the house of the complainant and checked the Washing Machine after that he said that chip system and wiring of the washing machine was damaged and it was not covered under warranty and as such, the complainant has to pay the charges of Rs.7000/- and accordingly, the complainant agreed to get change the said chip system and other repair parts and accordingly, on 11.01.2017, the representative/mechanic of the OP came to the house of the complainant and changed the chip and wiring of the Washing Machine and issued retail voice No.4760 for Rs.6993/-, but after changing the chip system and wiring, the machine still not working properly and then complainant made again complaint to the OP No.1 and representative of the OP again visited the house of the complainant and after checking the Washing Machine, told to the complainant that the motor of machine had been damaged and it was under 10 year replacement guarantee and the same will be replaced free of cost, but after making arrangement of the new motor. Then on 19.02.2017, the complainant again called the OP about replacement of the motor of the Washing Machine, but OP No.1 was delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, issued a new complaint No.RNP170119036142. Then complainant again made a call to OP No.1 for replacement of the motor and accordingly, OP No.1 asked for some time and again issued complaint No. RNP 170207093120. At last complainant approached his lawyer and served a legal notice to the OP, but all in vain and it is proved that the act and conduct of the OP tantamount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, which gave cause of action to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the price of the Washing Machine i.e. Rs.29,200/- as well as repair charges of Rs.6993/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service, OP No.1 and 3 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 duly served and appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the same has not been properly verified as required under the law and further alleged that the complaint is misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit and further averred that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum. The real facts are that there is no such defect as alleged by the complainant in the Washing Machine and the defect in the Washing Machine has been duly rectified by the answering OP as per the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant by filing this false and frivolous complaint on the basis of concocted story seeks to put pressure upon the OP to raise a false claim for which she is not entitled. The representative of the answering OP has approached the complainant during all times to replace the part of the Washing Machine, if required, but the complainant has not cooperated and have also misbehaved with the representative of the OP. The complainant herself is wrong doers and it is settled law that a person who has not come to the Forum with clean hands, is not entitled for the relief. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the Washing Machine and he made complaint to the OP for defect in the Washing Machine, but the same has been cured by the representative/mechanic of the OP and further submitted that the all defects as alleged by the complainant in the complaint occurred only due to her own fault regarding which the representative of the OP was always ready and willing to rectify the same, but it is the complainant, who was raising illegal and unlawful demands of getting the Washing Machine to be replaced with the new one, which is not permissible as per norms. The other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
4. Similarly, counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A along with some documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. From the very out set of the pleading of both the parties, it is clearly established on the file that the complainant has purchased a Washing Machine from OP No.3, who is the dealer of the manufacturing firm i.e. OP No.2 and further a defect occurred in the Washing Machine is also not in dispute rather it is also admitted by the OP, but OP alleged that the said defect has been rectified and further, the OP is ready to rectify the defect if there is any and regarding that the OP has brought on the file a letter dated 24.02.2017 Ex.O-6, whereby seeking a time from the complainant for visit of the engineer of the OP to replacement the part of the Washing Machine, but the complainant did not give time to the mechanic/representative of the OP and as such, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP and further, OP has brought on the file Job Sheet Ex.O-5, where from it is also established that there is some defect in the Washing Machine, which was reported on 20.01.2017. It is not denied that the motor of the Washing Machine having 10 years guarantee and the other machine having only 24 months guarantee, if there is any defect in the motor that can be replaced free of cost within 10 years, means the motor of the Washing Machine is still under warranty. Furthermore, the complainant could not able to bring on the file even iota of evidence to establish that there is any manufacturing defect with the Washing Machine, simply only alleging that there is a major defect in the machine and ask for replacement or return of the price, is not genuine and acceptable, until the manufacturing defect is not established by the complainant by examining any expert/mechanic or got tested the Washing Machine from any mechanical laboratory, but no such type of evidence came on the file, therefore, we are of the opinion that the machine having no inherent manufacturing defect, therefore, the request for replacement or return of the price of the Washing Machine is not acceptable or cannot be granted to the complainant. The lessor relief can be granted even without asking by the party. So, accordingly, we came to conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get repair the Washing Machine from the OP, subject to condition if there is any defect in the motor of the Washing Machine, which will be repaired/changed free of cost, if there is any defect in the Washing Machine, the same will be repaired on charges basis as per law and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief as discussed above.
7. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to repair the Washing Machine of the complainant as observed above and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.7000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
28.11.2018 Member President
