Haryana

Jind

CC/74/2014

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Aggarwal Elect. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh D.S. Redhu

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 74 of 2014
   Date of Institution: 8.7.2014
   Date of final order: 17.8.2016

Satish Kumar son of Jogi Ram r/o village Mangalpur, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind now r/o house No.758/21 Bhagat Singh Colony Gali No.4, Narwana, District Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Aggarwal Electronics 16 HUDA Complex branch Khadi Chowk, Narwana, District Jind through its Proprietor. 
Manufacturer of IFB Washing Machine(name and address to be disclosed by the OP No.1).
IFB Industries Limited care of Uttam Associaes Himalaya Cold Storage, GT road bye pass Karnal through its authorized signatory.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. D.S. Redhu Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. K.K. Mittal Adv. for opposite party No.3.      
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had purchased IFB washing machine model Executive Plus Sr. No.126386 for a sum of Rs.21,000/- vide bill No.2054 dated 10.8.2009 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.2. 
            Satish Kumar Vs. Aggarwal Electronics etc.
                       …2…
The opposite party No.1 has given 2 years warranty  of all kind. It is stated that on 19.7.2011 he got extended its warranty for a period of two years more and deposited a sum of Rs.3,520/-  to the opposite party No.3.  Thereafter he again extended its warranty of one year  and paid a sum of Rs.2300/-   vide receipt No.1277 to opposite party No.3 and now the said product is within warranty till 20.8.2014. There were some manufacturing defects owing to which there remains huge sound  while the said washing machine was being used. The complainant made complaint on their toll free number of the company but all times the mechanics of company visited the house of complainant and repaired the machine for tracing out the defect which resulted in to huge sound time and again but the proper work of removal of sound was never done by the opposite parties. At present also there is huge sound in the said washing machine and there is also some defect in its door and door is not properly working. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and requested to replace the washing machine or to remove the defect permanently but of no use. The complainant served a legal notice dated 29.8.2014 through his counsel upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the  washing machine with new one or to pay the cost of washing machine i.e. Rs.21,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
        Satish Kumar Vs. Aggarwal Electronics etc.
                       …3…
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 have appeared and filed the separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 has contended  in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that  the complainant has got extended warranty from opposite party No.3 and paid the extended warranty amount to opposite party No.3 so the complainant has no concern with answering opposite party in any manner. As per terms and conditions of the company the answering opposite party is not responsible for the warranty/repair and the first two years warranty had already been expired so the question of deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party does not arise. Dismissal of complaint with cost  against answering opposite party is prayed for.
3.    Opposite party No.3 has contended that the complaint was received on 21.8.2013 and the said complaint was attended on the same date.  The washing machine of the complainant was checked with full load. During checking, the washing machine was found working properly and there was no defect in it.  The complainant had availed proper services from the answering opposite party. There is not any complaint pending against the answering opposite party. The opposite parties have never agreed to replace washing machine and its door is working properly and there was no unusual sound in the machine. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 

            Satish Kumar Vs. Aggarwal Electronics etc.
                       …4…
answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
4.    We have heard Ld. counsel for all the parties and also perused the record placed on file. When the opposite parties have filed the written statement and also filed the application under Section 13 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for grant of permission to the applicant to inspect the washing machine  and complainant be directed to produce the appliance before this Forum for inspection by the technician of the opposite party No.3 i.e. the applicant. The counsel for complainant filed the reply  stated that the complainant was unable to produce the washing machine before this Forum and complainant has no objection if the opposite parties No.2 and 3 want to inspect the washing machine at the residential house of complainant situated at Bhagat Singh Colony, Narwana in the presence of both the counsels. Upon this Forum has passed the order dated 24.2.2016 and opposite parties No.2 and 3 were directed to inspect the washing machine of the complainant at his residence and the complainant was directed to allow to inspect the washing machine. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 were directed to submit the report on 30.3.2016. Joint inspection report dated 27.4.2016  was submitted by Parveen Kumar Senior Technician and Amrit Sharma, Service Executive and Senior Engineer along with job card in this Forum. The joint inspection report reads as under:-
Performance Report:- “Without any adjustments washing machine was tested and it was found working. The washing machine was 
            Satish Kumar Vs. Aggarwal Electronics etc.
                       …5…
checked with the help of Electronic Multimeter and all the tests were found positive. Bearing seal (rubber part) was found de-shaped/damaged due to overloading of the cloths as such th same was replaced with bearing nO.6203 for possible damage due water leakage from bearing seal. Thereafter the washing machine with load and without load was demonstrated to the complainant in proper condition. The customer had signed job card dated 27.4.2016 and had expressed satisfactory performance of the appliance. 
Technical report:-Since the appliance was working properly so no technical adjustment was required in the appliance except replacement of the bearing and bearing seal due to above stated reasons. However, it was recommended to the complainant for not overloading and the washing machine was having 5kg load capacity. 
Manufacturing Defects:- Not in existence
Complainant Observation:- Complainant could not point out any of the defects in the appliance and discharged satisfactory performance report. 
Action Purposed:- No action is purposed.
Noise status:- During operation noise was found normal.
Opinion:- There is no manufacturing defects in the appliance and noise status is normal.
5.    The forth most question involved in this case whether the washing machine is having any manufacturing defect or not? We have sought to report for above and found that there is no manufacturing defect in the washing machine. 
            Satish Kumar Vs. Aggarwal Electronics etc.
                       …6…
6.    After submitting the  above said report , the complainant has filed the counter affidavit against the said report alleging that the washing machine is still not working and there is leakage of water of washing machine and there is heavy sound coming from the washing 
machine while working and it is not functioning properly. But the complainant has not filed any  technical report  to rebut the report of the joint committee rather complainant has signed on the report as well as on the endorsement that I am completely satisfied with the service carried out on my appliances. 
7.    We are of the firm view that technician inspected the washing machine of the complainant and washing machine was found in working condition and there was no technical defect in the washing machine and same was inspected in the presence of complainant and there is no substance in the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 17.8.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

         Satish Kumar Vs. Aggarwal Electronics etc.
                       
Present:  Sh. D.S. Redhu Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. K.K. Mittal Adv. for opposite party No.3.  

              Arguments heard. To come up on 17.8.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  10.8.2016

Present:  Sh. D.S. Redhu Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. K.K. Mittal Adv. for opposite party No.3.     
         
         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  17.8.2016