Haryana

Kaithal

130/20

Abhishek - Complainant(s)

Versus

Modern Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.130/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 20.03.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:20.03.2023.

Abhishek son of Sh. Sanjeev R/o# 141/12, Chandana Road, Shakti Nagar, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Modern Traders, Park Road, Kaithal through its Prop./partner.
2. M/s. Re-Care Solutions Service Station, near Secretariat, HUDA Road, Kaithal through its prop./partner.
3. L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Limited, SCO No.9, Ist Floor Meerut Road, Karnal, Haryana India through its Director.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OP No.1 exparte.

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OPs No.2 & 3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Abhishek-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine of L.G.Compnay, Model:T-7569NDDCH, Chasis No.907NWMQ151907 (4+8) for the sum of Rs.17,000/- vide invoice No.4271 dt. 15.10.2019.  It is alleged that after some days of its purchase, the above-said fully automatic washing machine started to torn the clothes within washing machine and clothes were not properly washed and dried and detergent powder remained in clothes.  The complainant made complaint to the respondents from time and again but the respondents postponed to repair and replace the said washing machine on one pretext or the other.  The respondent No.1 has sold the defective washing machine to the complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents No.2 & 3 appeared before this Commission through counsel, whereas respondent No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.01.2021.  Respondents No.2 & 3 contested the complaint by filing their joint written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the answering respondent No.2 i.e. L.G. Electronics is a renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic products for the past several years.  The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated.  No question of any deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent arises.  On merits, it is stated to be wrong that after some days of the purchase of the washing machine started to torn the clothes within washing machine and clothes were not properly dried and detergent powder remained in the clothes.  Upon receipt of the complaint dt. 11.02.2020 bearing No.RNP200211080698, the service engineer visited the premises of complainant and after checking the said washing machine made some minor adjustments and educated the complainant regarding the usage of the washing machine.  The complainant again lodged a complaint on 29.02.2020 vide complaint No.RNP200229034054.  Again the service engineer who visited the premises of complainant explained and guided the complainant regarding the usage of detergent and washing machine.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine of L.G.Compnay, Model:T-7569NDDCH, Chasis No.907NWMQ151907 (4+8) for the sum of Rs.17,000/- vide invoice No.4271 dt. 15.10.2019.  It has been further argued that after some days of its purchase, the above-said fully automatic washing machine started to torn the clothes within washing machine and clothes were not properly washed and dried and detergent powder remained in clothes.  The complainant made complaint to the respondents from time and again but the respondents postponed to repair and replace the said washing machine on one pretext or the other. The counsel for the complainant has stated that the washing machine is defective and is not in working condition and it should be replaced with the new one.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 argued that the respondent No.2 i.e. L.G. Electronics is a renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic products for the past several years.  The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated.

8.             From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that since the washing machine purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.4271 dt. 15.10.2019 as per Annexure-C1 became defective within the warranty period.  Despite several requests and visits, the OPs neither repair the said washing machine nor change the same with the new one.  OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte in the present case.  So, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the OP No.1.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

9.             Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, the Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to replace the defective washing machine with the new one of the same model as purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 and to pay Rs. Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days.  However, it is made clear that if the same model is not available with the respondents, then the respondents shall pay Rs.17,000/- i.e. cost of washing machine to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.        

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against the respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.