Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/199/2019

Ranjana Shahi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bosch Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Saksham Arora

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ms.Ranjana Shahi d/o late Sh.R.K.Shahi r/o H.No.3070, Sector 40-D,Chandigarh -160036.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s Bosch Ltd., Building No.703, Naganathapura, Electronic City Post Office, Banglore, Karnataka-560100
2. Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd., H.No.37/3, Old Rajender Nagar, Near Water Tank, Central Delhi, New Delhi-110060.

…. Opposite Parties

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  she entered into an contract of purchase with OP No.2 for purchase  of dishwasher from its respective web portal through its internet access link as th date of repair, a new problem occurred showing a new error code number as E23 and E-15 respectively.  She again requested Mr.Harsh, Local Service Incharge to send the mechanic who visited after two days and told that some part(s) is/are required to be installed and went away.  Thereafter, the complainant was told that some parts and rat preventive net were required to be fixed in the machine.  According to the complainant, she wrote several e-mails to the OPs including 21.12.2018 but to no effect.  She also called Mr.Harpeet in January, 2019 but he failed to respond the call. It has been averred that the product was defective by default from the very date of its installation and the OPs failed to resolve the issue despite her repeated requests. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.     In its written statement,  OP No.1 took preliminary objections inter aila that the subject dishwasher is manufactured and sold in India by BSH Household Appliances Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.  and as such its name requires to be deleted from the array of parties. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant purcahsed one dishwasher on 22.09.2017 for Rs.24,999/- from online portal flipkart and the product was installed  on 07.10.2017 and all the queries of the complainant was addressed in detail.  The complainant registered a complaint on 20.11.2017 regarding non-functioning, which was duly attended by the technician of BSH and after inspection, no defect was found. Almost after one year on 17.11.2018, the complainant raised a second call which was attended by the technicians of BSH and adjustments were done in the setting after which the machine was working fine. Thereafter, the complainant registered the complaint in December, 2018 and during inspection, it was found that the wires of PCB and wire harness were damaged by rodent and BSH as a gesture of goodwill offered  her a discount of 50% on spare parts.  It has further been pleaded that as informed by BSH, after three months, another complaint dated 05.03.2019 was registered and it was found that the rodents had damaged the wire harness and the complainant was informed that the repair was not covered under the warranty and was to be undertaken on chargeable basis and no discount could be provided for external damages caused by rodents.  It has further been pleaded that even after services being provided by BSH including replacement of the parts, the complainant in order to fulfill her unjustified demands has filed the present complaint. As per the warranty terms, the BSCH was only to replace /repair the parts that have a manufacturing defect within 2 years warranty period and the full refund/ replacement was never part of the warranty obligation. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     In its separate written statement, OP No.2 has stated that the main grievance of the complainant is related with the defect in the product which was manufactured by M/s Bosch Pvt. Ltd.  It has further been averred that it was alleged in the complaint that there is some technical defect, therefore, it has nothing to do with the manufacturing/technical defect of the product.  It has further been pleaded that the product was sold carrying manufacturer’s warranty as provided and it does not come into the picture once the product was duly delivered to the complainant to his full satisfaction.  It has further been pleaded that answering OP is merely a reseller registered on ‘Flipkart.com’ and the products bought by the complainant carry warranty issued/provided by respective manufacturers subject to the certain terms and conditions.  It has further been pleaded that it provides for a 10 days return/replacement policy which means that if the purchaser of the product faces any issue within 10 days of its receipt then he could seek refund of the amount. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     The complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record, written submissions of the complainant & OP No.1.
6.     From the pleadings of the rival parties and the documentary evidence attached with the complaint especially the job card dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure C-4), it is established that the first problem was detected in the dishwasher after two months of its purchase and the complainant specifically mentioned under the column of customer’s remarks as “problem not resolved”. Thereafter, the problem was again reported vide e-mail dated 28.03.2019 i.e. after a period of more than one and half years presumably, the complainant must be using the dishwasher during this period without any trouble/problem. However, the complainant has mentioned in the complaint that she had made numerous complaints orally as well as through e-mails to the OPs regarding the poor/mal-functioning  of the dishwasher and the OPs did not pay any heed to resolve the same.
7.     Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the complaint partly with directions to the OPs to fully repair the dishwasher and to make it fully functional by replacing the defective part(s), if any, free of costs. This order be complied with by the OP(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall pay an additional amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant besides compliance of the directions aforesaid.
8.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.