Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he had purchased one LG Branch automatic washing machine for Rs.45,000/- vide invoice No.11101 dated 19.12.2006 from Opposite Party No.2. In the month of July, 2017, the LG Washing Machine started giving trouble while in operation and as such, the complainant reported the matter to the Opposite Parties to resolve the problem in the product in question. But at last despite repeated requests, Opposite Party No.3 visited the premises and after inspecting the problem in the machine he concluded that some part of the machine is to be replaced but the part of the machine is not available and as such, the defect in the product can not be rectified and advice the complainant to replace the same with new one. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to rectify the defect in the product in question, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and at last, refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. In this way, there is clear cut deficiency in service, and cheating by the Opposite Parties towards the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the product in question with new one or to return its value and also to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service, financial loss and mental agony and to pay litigation expenses alongwith counsel fee.
3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the product washing machine has been purchased from Opposite Party No.2 who is dealer of second sale products of different companies, the products of different companies which get damaged during transportation or due to some other reasons are being sold on discounted price by Opposite Party No.2 and the said product sold by Opposite Party No.2 is not liable to be replaced in case of any kind of defect. On 18.09.2017 the complainant reported the problem in the product in question and the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked the product and replaced the required parts without any charges and washing machine was perfectly working and the complainant was satisfied. Again the complainant lodged a complaint on 27.09.2017 to check the machine in question but the complainant for the reasons best known to him did not permitted the service engineer to check the machine and kept on asking for replacement of the product in question and the service engineer finding no other alternative has to return back without checking the machine in question. There is no inherent defect in the product in question and the complainant is asking for replacement of the product without any justification. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 also taken up same and similar as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied being wrong and denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.
4. None has come present on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 No.3 despite service, hence Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.
6. Opposite Parties No.1 tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RA Ex.RB and copy of document Ex.R1 and close the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that he had purchased one LG Branch automatic washing machine for Rs.45,000/- vide invoice No.11101 dated 19.12.2006 from Opposite Party No.2. In the month of July, 2017, the LG Washing Machine started giving trouble while in operation and as such, the complainant reported the matter to the Opposite Parties to resolve the problem in the product in question. But at last despite repeated requests, Opposite Party No.3 visited the premises and after inspecting the problem in the machine he concluded that some part of the machine is to be replaced but the part of the machine is not available and as such, the defect in the product can not be rectified and advice the complainant to replace the same with new one. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to rectify the defect in the product in question, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and at last, refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the product washing machine has been purchased from Opposite Party No.2 who is dealer of second sale products of different companies, the products of different companies which get damaged during transportation or due to some other reasons are being sold on discounted price by Opposite Party No.2 and the said product sold by Opposite Party No.2 is not liable to be replaced in case of any kind of defect. On 18.09.2017 the complainant reported the problem in the product in question and the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked the product and replaced the required parts without any charges and washing machine was perfectly working and the complainant was satisfied. Again the complainant lodged a complaint on 27.09.2017 to check the machine in question but the complainant for the reasons best known to him did not permitted the service engineer to check the machine and kept on asking for replacement of the product in question and the service engineer finding no other alternative has to return back without checking the machine in question. There is no inherent defect in the product in question and the complainant is asking for replacement of the product without any justification. First of all, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the second hand product in question from Opposite Party No.2 on discounted price which get damaged during transportation or due to some other reasons. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under the law. Moreover, the complainant has nowhere brought these problems/ defect in question in the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.1 nor produced any job sheet in this regard or any manufacturing defect in the product in question, neither the complainant has ever produced any expert opinion to prove that the subject product suffers from any problems or to establish any manufacturing defect in the product in question. In this regard, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Dr.K.Kumar Advisor (Engineering) Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Dr.A.S.Narayana Rao & Anr (1 (2010) CPJ 19 NC for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of manufacturing defects in the product made in the complaint. Not only this, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand while passing order in First Appeal No. 89 of 2010; Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ms. Nujhat and another and First Appeal No. 215 of 2010; C.K. Birla, Director vs. Ms. Nujhat and another, has discussed a case Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC). In this case, the Hon'ble National Commission has laid down the law that onus to prove manufacturing defect in the product lies on the complainant and further that expert evidence need to be produced to prove manufacturing defect in the product. In the instant case, the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove any defect/ problem or manufacturing defect in the product in question. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated: 28.06.2022.
