DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 44

 Instituted on:   06.02.2023

                                                                         Decided on:     28.10.2024

Lakhwinder Singh son of Santokh Singh, resident of Opp. Sahid Udham Singh Stadium, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak,  District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     MNP Discount Mart, Ratia Road, Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana through its Proprietor (Complaint against OP number 1 was withdrawn on 06.03.2024).

2.     Voltas Limited, Voltas House, A, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400033 through its M.D.

3.     Voltas Limited, through its customer care authorities, A-43, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044. (Notice to OP number 3 not issued by the District Commission).

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:                   : Shri  G.S.Chatha, Adv.              

For OP No.2                       : Exparte.

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER     

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a Voltas Washing machine WTT140AGRT 14.0 KG for Rs.14500/- on 20.11.2021 from OP number 1, which was having five years warranty.   The grievance of complainant is that from the very beginning the washing machine in question started to give some problems and as such complainant approached OP number 1, who advised the complainant to approach the service centre. The complainant accordingly called upon the service centre and the employee of the service centre visited the complainant on 20.7.2022 and told that there is problem in the motor of the washing machine and repaired the same. Thereafter on 03.08.2022 same problem arose and the employee of the OP came to the house of the complainant on 06.08.2022 and resolved the issue. The same problem arose on 01.11.2022 and as such the complainant called upon the toll free number of the OPs and the employee of the OPs visited the house of the complainant on 04.11.2022 and repaired the washing machine. The machine again stopped working on 28.01.2023 and complainant lodged the complaint on toll free number of OPs, but nothing was done by the OPs. The complainant approached OP number 1 on 30.01.2023 and requested the OP number 1 to replace the washing machine in question with a new one, but nothing was done. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the washing machine in question with a new one or to refund its price i.e. Rs.14,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that opposite party number 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

3.             Further record reveals that complaint against OP number 1 was withdrawn by the complainant and notice of the complaint to OP number 3 was not issued as ordered by this Commission.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a Voltas Washing machine WTT140AGRT 14.0 KG for Rs.14500/- on 20.11.2021 from OP number 1 as is evident from the copy of the tax invoice Ex.C-2, which was having five years warranty.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that from the very beginning the washing machine in question is not working properly and as such complainant approached OP number 1, who advised the complainant to approach the service centre of the manufacturer. The complainant accordingly called upon the service centre and the employee of the service centre visited the complainant on 20.7.2022 and told that there is problem in the motor of the washing machine and repaired the same. Thereafter on 03.08.2022 same problem arose and the employee of the OP came to the house of the complainant on 06.08.2022 and resolved the issue. The same problem arose on 01.11.2022 and as such the complainant called upon the toll free number of the OPs and the employee of the OPs visited the house of the complainant on 04.11.2022 and repaired the washing machine. The machine again stopped working on 28.01.2023 and complainant lodged the complaint on toll free number of OPs, but nothing was done by the OPs. The complainant approached OP number 1 on 30.01.2023 and requested the OP number 1 to replace the washing machine in question with a new one, but nothing was done. All this evidence is duly supported by the MM-VOLTAS Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7, meaning thereby the technician of the OP number 2 visited so many times to the complainant to set right the issue of the washing machine which shows that the washing machine supplied to the complainant was defective one. All the evidence of the complainant is duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1. More over, the OP number 2 chose to remain exparte and whole of the evidence is unrebutted. We may further mention that all the SMS show that the technician of the OP visited so many times to the complainant.  Further record reveals that the complainant has not produced on record any expert opinion of the expert to support the contention that the washing machine in question was having any manufacturing defect therein. It is no doubt true that the washing machine developed defects so many times and the mechanic of the OP visited so many times to repair the washing machine in question.   In the circumstances, we find that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 2 is directed to set right the washing machine in question without charging any charges for repairing/replacing the parts of the washing machine in question.

5.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to set right the washing machine of the complainant by repairing/replacing the spare parts free of cost i.e. without charging any charges from the complainant. We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. 

6.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

7.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        October 28, 2024.

        (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member           Member                    President