Punjab

StateCommission

FA/1457/2013

Shamsher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohit Enterprises and another - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Singla

20 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH

 

FIRST APPEAL No.1457 of 2013

                                                 Date of Institution: 30.12.2013

 Date of Decision  :  20.02.2015

 

Shamsher Singh son of Sh. Jarnail Singh resident of Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa.

…..Appellant/Complainant

VERSUS

 

1.       Mohit Enterprises, Suni Gali Mansa, District Mansa through its proprietor/partner.

 

2.       L.G. Electronic India Pvt. Ltd., A-27, Mohar Cooperative   Industrial     Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044

 

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against the order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.

 

Quorum:

 

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh, President

          Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member

                   Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

 

Present:

 

          For the appellant           :        Sh. Rajinder Singla, Advocate

          For respondent No.1      :        Ex-parte

          For respondent No.2      :        Sh. C.D.Jindal, Advocate

 

BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER

          This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant  against the order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short “District Forum”), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties (in short 'OPs') was partly allowed and OPs were directed to replace the outer cabinet of the washing machine. They were further directed to repair the machine to the satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a fully automatic L.G. make washing machine on 13.6.2013 from OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs.12,500/- against bill No. 432. This machine was manufactured by OP No.2 and OP No.1 is the dealer of manufacturer. The said washing machine  was delivered at his house in the evening by one Janta Singh and on 15.6.2013 and Sh. Hardeep Singh, mechanic of OP No.1, came to his house for installing the same. When the mechanic opened the  machine and installed the same, it was noticed that there was a dent and  scratches on its body and when same was operated, it was not properly cleaning the clothes. It was also noticed that the serial number of the machine, as mentioned on the card board packing box, was  different from the serial number mentioned on the machine itself. OP No.1 was informed by the complainant about  the defective machine but it did not bother to attend to his complaint. Thereafter, he contacted at  Customer Care Centre and Kamaljit Kaur, Senior Manager at Bathinda on telephone and the person present there gave him telephone number of Gurinder Singh, Senior Manager at Mansa. However, when said Gurinder Singh was contacted, he told the complainant that one Pargat Singh would contact him, but, till the filing of the complaint, no one came to attend the machine.  Even, no satisfactory reply was given to him by the office of OPs. They even refused to replace the defective machine or to refund its cost.  Alleging it to be a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum seeking directions to the OPs to replace the washing machine with a new one. A compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- was also claimed on account of mental and physical harassment.

3.       OP No.1 in its written reply, pleaded that complaint was misconceived and frivolous and had been filed with ulterior motives to extract money from it. There was no deficiency in service on its part and in case there was any manufacturing defect in the washing machine, then only OP No.2 was to be held liable. While admitting the sale of the said machine to the complainant, it was stated that the custody of the machine was taken by the complainant himself after selecting the same at its shop. So, the  question of selling and delivering the washing machine with scratches did not arise at all.  It was further pleaded that the serial number of the machine was the same as mentioned on its card board box. Even a demo was given to him vide RNA 1306/3096409 and the machine was found to be working properly and smoothly. The complainant never approached it thereafter. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint with costs was prayed.

4.       In a separate written reply, OP No.2 pleaded that it was not at all involved in sending the washing machine to the customer's premises. Company's technician was sent to install the machine on 15.6.2013 on the request logged by dealer on Customer Care Centre. The existence of scratches or any dent on the body of the machine was denied. It pleaded that the complainant has made wrong statements, as Kamaljeet Kaur was, infact, its Customer Care Officer posted at Ludhiana and not at Bathinda. Similarly Gurinder Pal Singh (Area Service Manager) was at Bathinda and not at Mansa as alleged and that  Customer Care never called them for any complaint. It was further submitted that it was always in favour of repairing the machine and complainant was even intimated that in case there were scratches and dent as alleged by complainant, the outer body of machine could be replaced with new body but he was adamant to get the replacement of the machine or in getting the refund of its price. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

5.       Parties led their evidence, by way of affidavits and documents, before the District Forum, which after going through the same, allowed the complaint, in aforesaid terms.

6.       Not fully satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in the appeal on the ground that District Forum while directing the OPs to replace the outer body of the washing machine and to repair the same, ignored the fact that there was a report dated 30.06.2013 of the Mechanic Tarsem Chand, wherein he categorically stated that the said machine was not working properly due to manufacturing defect in it and was having scratches and dent on its outer body. The learned District Forum has also ignored the warrantee clause 2, in which it is provided that repair and replacement will be carried out by the dealer from whom the product has been purchased or through the authorized service centre. Learned District Forum has also failed to grant compensation on account of deficiency in service. Acceptance of the complaint in toto was prayed. It was further submitted that the complainant had to buy another washing machine on 01.08.2013 as the machine supplied by the OPs was having manufacturing defect in it.

7.       Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed. 

8.       Admittedly, the complainant purchased one 6.0 Kg, LG make, washing machine from OP No.1 on 13.6.2013 for a consideration of Rs.12,500/- vide retail  invoice Ex.C-4. The specific grievance of the complainant is that when Sh. Hardip Singh, Mechanic of the OP No.1,  came to install the machine at his residence on 15.6.2013, it was found that the serial number mentioned on the card board box was different from the serial number on the machine itself and that there were scratches as well as a dent on the body of the machine and further that when the machine was run, it was not properly washing the clothes. To support his allegations, the complainant has proved the report of one mechanic  Sh. Tarsem Singh as Ex.C-2, which is supported by his affidavit (Ex.C-1). In his report, said Tarsem Singh stated that he noticed scratches and dent on the outer body of the machine. He also checked the working of the machine in the presence of the complainant and stated that as per his experience, there was a manufacturing defect in it as its gear assembly kept rotating but it was not cleaning the clothes. Even the dryer tub, being defective, was also not   working properly.

9.       Learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that the said Mechanic has not stated about his qualification though he has claimed himself to be an experienced Mechanic. In the absence of any evidence that he was an expert washing machine Mechanic, his report cannot be considered to be admissible.  Moreover the Mechanic has stated in his affidavit (Ex.C-1) that he did not check the machine by opening the same as it was under warranty. We find force in these submissions because unless and until the machine is thoroughly checked after opening, it cannot be concluded that machine was having any manufacturing defect,  which can not be rectified by repairs. There is nothing on record to indicate if complainant ever asked the OPs to repair his washing machine or brought the alleged defect to their notice.

10.     Learned District Forum has already ordered the replacement of the outer body of the machine as committed by OP No.2 and even directed OPs to repair the machine to the satisfaction of complainant. The contention of the complainant that the machine was having a manufacturing defect in it and, therefore, the same be replaced with a new one cannot be accepted because under the clause-2 of the warranty (Ex.C-3), the machine was to be checked and repaired by the authorized service centre and its replacement is warranted only if it is found beyond repairs. Thus the District Forum has rightly directed the OPs to get the machine repaired instead of its replacement. Since the complainant did not bring the defect, if any, to the notice of the OPs, he is not entitled to any compensation for alleged deficiency in service.

11.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the appeal of the complainant and the same is dismissed. Order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.

12.     The arguments in the case were heard on 04.02.2015 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

13.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.

 

 (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

MEMBER

 

(SURINDER PAL KAUR)

MEMBER

February 20 , 2015