BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 66 of 2018
Date of Institution : 19.02.2018
Date of Decision : 06.03.2019
Subhash Jhorar son of Shri Ladu Ram resident of village Mithi Surera, Tehsil Ellenabad District, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Madaan Electronics Store Rori Bazar, Sirsa through its authorized person.
- Videocon Customer Care Service Centre, C/o JS TV Centre, Opp. Bharat Gun House, Arya Samaj Road, Sirsa District Sirsa through its authorized person.
- Videocon Industries Ltd. 296, 4th Floor, Udhyog Vihar Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana through its authorized person.
- Videocon Industries Ltd. 14 Kms. Stone, Aurangabad Paithan Road, Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan District Aurangabad 431105 through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Amit Kumar , Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K.Puri, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
OP Nos. 2 to 4 exparte.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a washing machine make Videocon Careen Plus 6.5 Kg. Model No.VF65CPSL – CSN from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.31,500/- vide invoice No.5939 dated 22.03.2011. The product in question was having one year guarantee/warrantee for any manufacturing defect. Unfortunately, the drain motor of the washing machine went out of order; therefore, he approached the Op No.1 and thereafter lodged complaint with Op No.2. One mechanic Joginder Singh visited the premises of complainant and disclosed that the drain motor needs to be changed due to manufacturing defect. The complainant kept on waiting for the engineer for getting the drain motor changed but Op No.2 again sent a mechanic who will charge Rs.1200/- as service charges. Thereafter, the complainant had lodged his complain t on toll free number vide complaint No.KAR1807170083 on dated 18.07.2017 followed by complaint dated 19.09.2017 but to no avail. The complainant also got legal notice served upon the Ops but the Ops have lingered on the matter and further failed to remove the defect in the washing machine and this act and conduct Amount to clearly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; suppression of true and material facts and that the complaint is time barred. It has been submitted that the complainant had purchased washing machine Videocon Careen Plus 6.5 KG for a sum of Rs.31500/- vide invoice No.5939 dated 22.03.2011 and the replying OP had never assured that it will exchange with a new washing machine without any cost in case of manufacturing defect and the Op No.1 had not given any guarantee/warrantee of one year. The OP No.1 had never referred him to make a call to Op No.2/service centre and he had approached to it with his free consent and if there is any manufacturing defect in the drain motor the Op Nos.3 & 4 are responsible for the same. At the time sale of washing machine there was no defect in the same and before purchasing the product the complainant and his family members had verified and checked the washing machine. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
OP Nos. 2 to 4 did not appear before this Forum and they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 08.10.2018 and 16.11.2018 respectively.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence. The complainant has tendered his Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, ld. counsel for op no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that the complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, in which he reiterated all the same allegations made in the complaint. He has specifically deposed that he has purchased a washing machine make Videocon Careen Plus 6.5 KW on 22.03.2011 for sum of Rs.31,500/- vide invoice No.5939 with a warranty of one year. Due to bad luck of the complainant the drain motor of the washing machine has gone out of order. The perusal of the complaint further reveals that the complainant has not mentioned the date of the defect in the drain motor of the washing machine. Further perusal of the file reveals that the complainant has only placed on record Ex.C1 sale invoice and legal notice dated 23.10.2017 Ex.C3. The complainant has failed to produce any document on the case file from which it could be presumed that the complainant has ever lodged any complaint regarding the defect in the drain motor in between 22.03.2011 to 23.10.2017. Perusal of the legal notice also reflects that the complainant has not mentioned the date of defect rather he himself has mentioned that he lodged the complaint on 18.07.2017 after a lapse of more than 6 years from the date of purchase of the washing machine. It appears that the warranty of the washing machine had already expired before lodging this complaint. The complainant has also not placed any record from which it could be presumed that there was any manufacturing defect in the washing machine or in the drain motor of the machine.
6. During the course of arguments though learned counsel of the complainant has contended that the complainant is ready to pay the cost of the drain motor to the Ops in case the drain motor is supplied to the complainant as the same is not available in the market.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case law titled as Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Atul Bhardwaj & Anr. 2009 (1) CPJ 270 (NC) but the facts of this case law is not applicable to the case in hand and the same is hereby distinguished as in the reported judgment there was 10 job cards of the vehicle which were placed on record but however, in the present case the complainant has not placed on record single job sheet qua the defect in the drain motor.
8. After going though the record as well as rival contentions of the parties we do not find any manufacturing defect in the drain motor and also do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops but however, keeping in view the facts and circumstances we partly allow this complaint directing the Ops to supply the drain motor of the washing machine to the complainant and the complainant would make the payment of the drain motor within a period of 30 days as the same is not available in the market. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:06.03.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
