BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 180 of 2018
Date of Institution: 12.3.2018
Date of Decision: 5.2.2019
Mrs.Poonam Rani W/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar R/o H.No. 189, Gali No.5, Sunder Nagar, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- LG India Electronics Pvt.Ltd. through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer having its branch office at Kennedy Avenue, Opp. Mohan International Hotel, Amritsar through its Branch Manager
- International Electronic Agency, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Principle Officer
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Inderjit Lakhra,Advocate
For Opposite Parties No.1 & 2: Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
Coram
Sh.Charanjit Singh, President
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
1. Mrs.Poonam Rani, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant has purchased one LG washing machine for Rs. 25300/- vide Invoice No. G611 dated 18.10.2017 having two year warranty being manufactured by opposite party No.1 from opposite party No.2. As such the complainant is consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The said washing machine started creating trouble from the day of installation by the opposite parties, immediately after its purchase as it started making cuts in the clothes and has torn many valuable clothes of the complainant and giving foul smell and eminating loud noises and instead stains be removed from the clothes , it started giving stains on the clothes. Complaints to the said effect were made on toll free number of opposite party No.1 and verbally complaints were lodged with opposite party No.2, but to no effect. The service engineers from the opposite party No.1 visited the complainant two three times but failed to rectify the aforesaid defects and the said washing machine is lying idle and useless till the filing of the present complaint. The complainant made futile visits to the opposite party No.2 to replace the said washing machine with new one or return their hard earned money, but to no effect. The aforesaid acts of the opposite parties in supplying the defective product to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-
(a) Opposite party be directed to supply new washing machine of same make and model or better one or in the alternative to refund Rs. 25300/- with interest from the date of purchase till realization ;
b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the washing machine of the complainant is working properly and there was no recurring problem or any problem thereof. It was submitted that whenever any complaint is lodged regarding any product a complaint number is given to the person, who lodges the complaint and the complaints of the complainant were promptly looked after and there is no problem with the working of the washing machine of the complainant.While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh. Inderjit Lakhra,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence ld.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Abhay Nanda,Area Service Head Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 & 2.
5. We have heard the Ld.counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence , it becomes evident that the complainant has purchased a washing machine vide Invoice No. G611 dated 18.10.2017 for Rs. 25300/-, which was having two years warranty copy of which is Ex.C-2 on record. It was the case of the complainant that immediately after installation of the machine , it started giving trouble as it started making cuts in the clothes and has torn many valuable clothes of the complainant and giving foul smell and eminating loud noises and also started giving stains on the clothes. In this regard complainant lodged complaints on the toll free number of opposite party No.1 and made verbally complaints with opposite party No.2. The service engineers from the opposite party No.1 visited the complainant two three times but failed to rectify the aforesaid defects in the washing machine . On the other hand the only plea of the opposite parties is that whenever complaints were lodged by the complainant, those were promptly looked after and there is no problem with the working of the washing machine of the complainant. But, we are not agreed with this plea of the opposite parties as nobody used to visit or lodge complaints if the same is/was working properly as no prudent person wants to involve such types of litigations and if the complainant has alleged that the defects as stated above have not been removed by the opposite parties and in this regard has submitted his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, the Forum has to believe the said averment of the complainant. It is settled principle of law that in case two plausible views were available, under given set of facts, the court shall be obliged to the view which was favourable to the consumer . Reference, in this regard can be had to “Kulwinder Singh Versus LIC of India” 2007(1) CLT 303 (Punjab) wherein it has been held that “where two views are possible, the one, which favour the consumer should be taken”. Moreover the product i.e. washing machine is under warranty period and if any defect occurred during the warranty period the same is to be replaced. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that
“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that
“when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost.”
In the instant case, the washing machine in question started giving troubles within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that
“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”
7. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is directed to replace the washing machine of the complainant with new one of same make or model or in case of non availability of the said machine to refund the sale price of the washing machine i.e.Rs. 25300/- to the complainant. The parties are left to bear their own costs. However, complaint against opposite party No.1 stands dismissed. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of passing this order , failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
