Haryana

Ambala

CC/445/2019

Atul Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madaan Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Gupta

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	445 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	20.12.2019
Date of decision	:	17.11.2022

 

Atul Gupta son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, resident of V.P.O Shahpur, near Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Madaan Electronics, S.C.O. 4 & 5, Jagadhri Road, near Punjab Kesri, Ambala Cantt, through its authorized signatory.
2. Bajaj Allianz 3rd Floor, Minerwa Complex, Ambala Cantt, through its Manager.
3. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, A-Wing (3rd floor) D-3, Distt. Center, Saket, New Delhi-11007, through its Manager/Authorized signatory.

 

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Complainant in person

                             Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1 and 3. 

                          Shri  R.K Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

a) To replace the washing machine of complainant with new one of the same brand or to refund the total purchase amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the amount till its realization.

b) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment which the complainant suffered due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

c) To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as legal fee and other expenses.

d) Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit.

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased fully automatic washing machine of LG Brand from the OP No.1 vide invoice No. G 6460 dated 19.12.2018 for Rs.47,000/- including taxes. The said washing machine was financed through HDFC Bank Ambala Cantt. OP No.1 at the time of selling/delivery of the above said washing machine, issued a Insurance Cover note bearing policy No.OG-19-1116-9930- 00000001 to the complainant and told him that as per the company scheme, the machine in question is insured which will cover all the risks during one year from the date of its purchase. In the month of November 2019, the washing machine started giving troubles in its functioning and also started giving loud voice sound. The washing machine was working on 1400 RMP and during its function, it fell down at the washing point, as a result of which its front cabin was bent and some parts thereof got defected. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the OPs, on line, vide RNP No. 191113093964 and also told about the incident to the authorized representative of OP No.1, who further told the complainant that he will send its representative to check the defect, but to no avail. The complainant after waiting sufficient time again approached the OP No. 1 to do the needful in the matter, but the OP No.1 told the complainant to inform OP No. 2 who is insurer of the said washing machine on TOLL FREE No.. Accordingly the complainant contacted the OP No. 2 on TOLL FREE No. and narrated the defects of the said washing machine. The OP No. 2 told the complainant that the Insurance policy of the washing machine has already expired in April 2019 as such no action can be taken at its end. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the OP No. I about the version of OP No. 2, then the OP No.1 told the complainant to approach the OP No. 3 being the manufacturer of the washing machine. When his grievance was not redressed, the complainant served legal notice registered A.D. dated 26.11.2019, upon the OPs through his counsel and requested them to do the needful. Thereafter, the representative of OP No. 3 visited the house of complainant on 30.11.2019 and after checking the washing machine, told the complainant that it is suffering from serious defects and it is beyond use.  The representative of OP No. 3 further assured the complainant that he will tell about all the serious defects of the washing machine to his superior officers/officials and the washing machine will be replaced with new one machine very soon being in warranty period, but till date neither the washing machine has been replaced nor any communication has been received by the complainant from them till today.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs No.1 and 3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and locus standi etc.   On merits, it has been stated that the OP No.3 is a renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and Class Electronic Products. OP No.3 has already provided the complainant with the replacement of the Washing Machine with a brand new one on 24.12.2019 and at the time of the said replacement the complainant had assured OP No. 3 that he will withdraw the present complaint but he did not do so. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction and estoppal etc.  The policy was issued to the LG electronics India Pvt. Ltd. while this insurance company is 70% shareholder in the policy and 30% share is of Cholamandalam General insurance company which has not been made party to the case, therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties. The complaint filed by the complainant is pre-matured as the complainant has not intimated any claim to this insurance company. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.2 has not received intimation of claim from the complainant for any loss to the alleged damage of the washing machine. Even no claim documents have been filed by the complainant before OP No.2 for any loss to the washing machine which is clear violation of condition no. 6 of the policy. Furthermore, the alleged damage is not covered as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as it is the case of the complainant that in the month of November, 2019, the washing machine started giving trouble in its functioning and also started giving loud voice sound. The washing machine alleged to be fallen down at the washing point as a result of which its front cabin was bent and some parts of the machine got defected, which is also out of the scope of policy terms and conditions mentioned in exceptions 1 (b) of the policy exclusions. Therefore, the OP No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation as the alleged incident is not covered by the OP No. 2. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-5 and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 3 tendered affidavit of Vikas Batra, Authorized Signatory, M/s L.G. Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd., as Annexure OP3/A alongwith document Annexure OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and 3. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh, Senior Executive Legal, Authorized Signatory, # Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector-9C, Chandigarh as  Annexure OP2/A  alongwith documents Annexure OP2/1 to OP2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 and carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP No.2.         
7.           Complainant has submitted that the OP No.3 has replaced the defective washing machine in question after the filing of the present complaint, therefore, he is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him and also litigation expenses.  
8.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that it was the duty of the OPs No.1 and 3 to repair the defective machine or in the alternative to replace the same, if the same was beyond repairs, as such, OP No.2, with which, no claim was ever  submitted by the complainant, cannot be held liable in the matter .
9.           Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 3 submitted that since defective machine in question has been replaced with a new one, which has been handed over to the complainant on 24.12.2019 as such, he is not entitled to any relief.
10.           It is significant to mention here that the complainant in his complaint is seeking directions to the OPs either to replace the washing machine with new one of the same brand or to refund the total purchase amount with interest. Admittedly, the washing machine in question was replaced with the new one, vide document/delivery challan dated 23.12.2019, Annexure OP-3/1, which stood handed over to the complainant on 24.1.2019. The OP No.3, replaced the washing machine in question during the pendency of the present complaint. Had the OPs replaced the defective machine within few days, when it was found that the same is beyond repairs, this unnecessary litigation for the complainant, would have been avoided. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion for the financial loss incurred for this litigation and also mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, for such a long time, he deserves to be compensated at the hands of OP No.1 and 3.  In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that if lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted as compensation and also litigation expenses to the complainant that will meet the end of justice. However, since the complainant has failed to prove that OP No.2 was in any way deficient in providing service, as such, the complaint against it is liable to be dismissed.

11.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and partly allow the same against OPs No.1 and 3 and they are jointly and severally, directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/-, towards compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and litigation expenses. OPs No.1 and 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid direction, within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 17.11.2022

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President