BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.121 of 2016
Date of Instt. 15.03.2016
Date of Decision: 13.09.2017
Tarun Malik Age 33 years, S/o Late Ishwar Dass, Resident of 146-B, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar, Mob No.9041903135.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Lovely Sanitations, Nakodar Road, Near Nari Niketan, Jalandhar.
Through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.
2. Roca Solutions, Level-3, Tower B, Building 10, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana
Through its Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. MS Walia, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased four flush seats model of Roca from OP No.1, vide bill No.755 dated 14.05.2011. The warranty of the said flush seats has given for ten years at the time of sale and further assurance was given to the complainant that in case of any defect or any kind of hair-line cracks found in the said seats, the seats shall be replaced immediately free of cost. Having faith and allured from the version of the OP No.1, the complainant purchased the above said four flush seats alongwith some other products. At the time of purchase of the said seats and other products the complainant was residing in rented house No.61-B, Dada Nagar, Jalandhar, which address is mentioned in the bill but the seats and other products were purchased for installation in H.No.146-B, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar, which was under construction at the time of purchase of the said items. The complainant got fitted the above seats in his new house No.146-B, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar. In the first week of January, 2013, the above said four seats became out of order due to manufacturing defect. In one seat Hair-line cracks developed and its hinges were damaged. The hinges of other three seats were also damaged. As such the hinges of four seats became defective due to manufacturing defect.
2. That in the second week of January, 2013, the complainant approached OP No.1 and told them for the said defects. The OP No.1 refused to rectify or replace the defective seats and hinges of seats by saying that now the OP No.1 has ceased to sell the products of OP No.2 because many products of OP No.2 were found having manufacturing defects, which the OP No.2 did not replace. The OP No.1 directed the complainant to contact OP No.2 for replacement of the defective seats and parts.
3. That on 28.01.2013, the complainant lodged a complaint through ONLINE with OP No.2, who registered the complaint of complainant, vide No.CJL31360. The OP No.2 told and assured the complainant that they would send their representative to replace the defective parts and seats within 15 days, when nobody came to rectify the defect, the complainant again lodged 2nd complaint with OP No.2, vide complaint No.CJL33002 on 02.03.2013. But the OP No.2 did not care to remove the defect or replace the seats. Again 3rd time, on 24.04.2013, the complainant lodged a complaint with OP No.2, vide NO.CJL34041 but they neither sent their any representative nor replaced the defective product. Again 4th time, on 08.05.2013, the complainant requested the OP No.2 to replace the defective seats. The OP No.2 registered the complaint, vide No.CJL 35012, but did not take any action. Again 5th time, on 24.02.2014, the complainant requested the OP No.2 to send their representative to check and replace the defective seats. The OP No.2 lodged a complaint, vide No.CJL142033 but no action was taken. 6th time, again on 14.07.2014 the complaint of the complainant was registered, vide No.CJL147009, but the OP No.2 did not send their any representative to check or replace the defective products. 7th time, on 04.05.2015, the complainant again requested the OP No.2 to send their representative to check the defective products. The OP No.2 lodged the complaint, vide No.CJL155008, but never paid any attention to solve the problem. 8th time, on 29.02.2016, the complainant again requested the OP No.2 to replace the defective seats. The OP No.2 registered the complaint, vide No.CJL162039 dated 29.02.2016, but closed the complaint process of the complainant without replacement of the defective seats. After that the complainant made several telephonic calls to OP No.2, which they ignored to attend and as such the OPs indulged negligence and deficient service by selling deliberately inferior quality seats having manufacturing defects and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the defective four seats with new piece and in the alternative to return its full cost as per bill with 24% interest per annum and be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service, OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed detailed reply, whereby categorically controverted the allegations as made in the complaint and further submitted that the warranty covers only manufacturing defects of product and warranty does not cover broken hinges, rubber parts and further admitted that eight complaints of the complainant were received but all time it was attended and then closed and detail of these complaints has been mentioned in the reply and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 Copy of Retail Invoice and Ex.C2 Warranty Terms and then closed the evidence.
6. Similarly counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/3 and then closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and also scanned the file very minutely.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased sanitary products from OP No.1 including four flush seats having model of Roca, which are manufactured by OP No.2 and in order to prove that the complainant purchased the said sanitary product from OP No.1, complainant produced on file, copy of bill/invoice Ex.C1 dated 14.05.2011. Apart from that the complainant also produced on the file warranty card of the Roca Industry, the same is Ex.C2, wherein the warranty for sanitary ware is 10 year. Now question remains whether the version of the OP that the warranty covered only manufacturing defect not covered the broken items. This plea has been taken by the OP in the written reply as well as in the affidavit of Bijay Kumar and the affidavit is Ex.OP/A, apart from affidavit, the OP has brought on the file some service record card pertaining to Washbasin, which is Ex.OP-1, Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3. Ex.OP-3 itself established that the OP has agreed to replace the hair line crack washbasin, if broken product i.e. Washbasin can be replaced then why the flush seat cannot be replaced in the same manner as the similar product washbasin is allowed to be replaced. So, it means that there is no term and condition that the broken article is not allowed to be replaced, if there was any term and condition like such then it is the duty of OP to bring on the file the said term and condition but for the best known reason, the OP has not brought on the file any term and condition to prove that the broken article is not allowed to be replaced. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP produced on the file an affidavit of Bijay Kumar Proprietor i.e. Ex.OP/A, wherein in Para No.9, the factum in regard to producing the term and condition of the warranty has been mentioned but later on the same has been struck off by putting a signature thereon by the person, who give the affidavit, so, it means that the OP itself is not able to establish on the file that there was any term and condition, which are applicable upon the product, which is broken, if so then, this formula is also not applicable upon the complainant and accordingly we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.2, who is a manufacturing firm of the said product is directed to replace the four flush seats of the same company and same brand having same price, after getting the old one and new one be supplied to the complainant and further OP No.2 is directed to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. 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 Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
13.09.2017 Member President
