Complainant Anil Kumar has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) to seek a direction to the opposite parties to remove the manufacturing defect/repair the microwave oven or in the alternative a new microwave oven may be given to him. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment both mentally and physically and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to him.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a microwave Oven/OIFB Model 22DGBC1 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.8300/- vide bill no.1054 dated 23.1.2012 and warranty on all the parts of the oven was one year and three years warranty on Magnetron and Cavity. Opposite party no.1 also assured him that they have the facility of the repair and spare. He has further pleaded that after about two months, the Oven started giving many problems like window of oven was not opening/closing properly and heater was not functioning properly and due to this reason the food was not getting hot, door safety lock was not functioning properly. The phone of the opposite parties was not in service, so he visited in the office of the opposite party no.1 with microwave oven and they assured him that they should have lodged a complaint to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and a technician of the company would visit him shortly, but nobody has come from the side of the opposite parties. He has next pleaded that in the month of December 2012 the said microwave oven stopped functioning completely and then he again visited the office of the opposite party no.1 alongwith microwave with a request to appoint a technician or to provide him toll free number of the opposite party no.2 but opposite party no.1 failed to provide any contact number to him and put off the matter on one or the other pretext. He wrote a letter dated 29.12.2013 to the opposite parties but no reply was received. Thereafter, he visited number of times in the office of the opposite party no.1 in the month of January 2013 to May 2013 and then opposite party no.1 expressed his inability to provide any service and given a toll free no.18604255678 to him and he lodged a complaint on the said number and then Mr.Rajeev (technician) of the opposite party no.2 visited and he charged Rs.950/- from him without issuing any receipt but after some days the said oven again stopped functioning. He again lodged a complaint on their email ID and on 11 October 2014 the opposite party no.2 sent a message to him with the remarks that “Dear Customer against your recent call a ticket is generated i.e. Ticket 13994352 and the Technician will visit Shortly” one Mr.Rupinder Kumar visited from the service centre but he could not remove the defect due to reason best known to him. The opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice and act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 have appeared through their counsel and filed a joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable for dismissal. The complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts in the complaint. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Act, for being false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. The complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the opposite party no.1. It was further submitted that the appliance sold to the complainant is of highest quality and the complainant has taken delivery of the microwave, after PRE-Delivery inspection and entire satisfaction and fully complies with the warranties, assurances and specifications, provided for it by the manufacturer, regarding quality and performance of the appliance. The complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. It was next submitted that complainant had prayed for the refund of price, interest there upon and compensation etc. The prayer of the complainant is beyond the warranty terms. Opposite party no.2 & 3 had extended limited warranty terms to the complainant and the relationship between the opposite party no.2 and 3 and opposite party no.1 is on principal to principal basis. It was submitted that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 cannot be held liable for any independent act and omission, if any, committed by the other opposite party. The complainant has filed this baseless complaint alleging manufacturing defects in the machine. The complaint of the complainant is also time barred. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased the microwave from opposite party no.1 which carry 12 months warranty extended by the opposite party no.2 & 3. The Magnetron and cavity carry warranty for a period of plus two years. However, the present complaint is not related to magnetron and cavity so the present complaint of the complainant is not covered under the limited warranty terms extended by the opposite parties no.2 and 3. It was further submitted that the complainant had not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and had intentionally suppressed the material facts in the complaint. There is no part named as window of the microwave which allegedly started creating opening and closing problem. The appliance was not suffering from the heating problem. The complainant has not explained parameters of heating in the appliance. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 have not received any of the alleged complaint after two-three months from the date of purchase. Rather the complaint with ticket no.13993252 was received on 11.10.2014 and the said complaint was promptly attended on the same date. The entire appliance was checked and it was found that the same is working normally. There are temperature controlling knobs in the appliance and the same can be adjusted as per the requirements of the temperature/time. The door safety lock was working properly. It was submitted that in case if the door would not be locked properly then appliance wouldn’t start working. The entire particulars of lodging complaint with the opposite party no.2 & 3 are given in the owner’s manual. The complainant had leveled vague allegations that some telephone numbers were given by the OP no.1 and the same were out of service. It was further submitted that complainant had leveled a false allegation that from the month of December 2012 the appliance is out of order in order to bring the present complaint within time limit. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 have not received any of the alleged complaint dated 29.12.2013 from the complainant. The complainant had projected a false story in the complaint in order to mislead this Hon’ble Forum. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Notice issued to the opposite party no.1 had not received back and none had come present on its behalf, so, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.1.2015.
5. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
6. Sh.Hakam Sharma, Officer IFB Industries of opposite party no.2 &3 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP2,3/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2,3/2 and Ex.OP-2,3/3 and closed the evidence.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
8. We find that the complainant has not been able to produce any expert evidence to prove on record the alleged inherent manufacturing defect in the Microwave in question and thus he shall not be straightaway entitled to ‘replacement/refund’ in lieu of the purchased kitchen-appliance. Moreover, the ‘dysfunction/defect’ etc was duly attended to by the OP vendor/suppliers Ex.OP2,3/3, though not to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant. The counsel for the OP2, 3 manufacturers has offered to‘re-examine’ the machine for removal of any ‘defect/dysfunction’ to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. We too, are of the considered opinion that it shall be in the interest of ‘natural justice’ and also in the benefit of all the litigating parties in case the ‘microwave’ is again put to ‘close’ examination for ‘detection’ of the alleged ‘defect/dysfunction’ and its subsequent removal/rectification etc.
9. In the light of the all above, we are inclined to dispose of the present complaint by directing the titled OPs vendor/manufacturers to get the ‘microwave’ removed to the service-station for an exhaustive ‘re-examination’ for the alleged ‘defects/dysfunctions’ etc and their subsequent ‘removal/rectification’ etc and to deliver back the fully ‘okay’ machine at the complainant’s residence along with a ‘certificate’ that the machine is in ‘perfect working order’ as per the IFB standards and its ‘warranty’ stands extended by another ‘six’ months. The entire cost of the award will be borne exclusively by the OPs amongst themselves but the exercise shall, by all means be completed/ exhausted within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the OPs shall be liable to pay-back/refund the billed amount of Rs.8,300/- i.e., the cost of the microwave with interest @ 9% PA from the date of the Bill Ex.C1 till actually paid.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
July, 07, 2015. Member
*MK*
