BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.123 of 2017
Date of Instt. 28.04.2017
Date of Decision: 11.10.2017
Bharat Bhushan aged about 46 years S/o Late Sh. Ravi Bhushan R/o NK-250-A, Charanjit Pura, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (Head Office) Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079 through its Managing Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative.
M/s Guru Nanak Refrigeration, (authorized Service Centre), Dhilwan Road, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar, through its Manager/Representative/Owner.
M/s Satnam Electronics & Gift Centre, Circular Road, Balmiki Gate, Jalandhar, through its Manager/Representative/Owner.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. KK Gupta, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sahil Verma, Deputy Manager on behalf of OP No.1 & 2.
OP No.3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein stated that on 14.06.2016, the complainant purchased a Godrej Washing Machine bearing Model No.WS 800 PDS from the OP No.3 and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/-, vide invoice No.885, dated 14.06.2016. The said product was covered with a complete warranty of two years from the date of purchase. After few months, the complainant found that the washing tub of the above said machine is affected with rust and the body of the machine giving electric shock to the family members of the complainant while using the same, then the complainant complained the matter on the toll free helpline/telephone No.1800225511 of the OP No.1, but no complaint number was issued regarding the complaint of the complainant, after few minutes, the complainant sent a complaint on the e-mail ID of the OP No.1. In response, a complaint No.92946 issued to the complainant and the customer care representative/employee of the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the service team will visit the place of the complainant shortly and after receiving this email, a service call was also received by the complainant from the office of the OP No.2, but nobody visited the place of the complainant to resolve the complaint. When nobody visited the place of the complainant, then the complainant again called the customer complaint toll free number of the OP No.1, then the engineer of the OP No.2 visited the place of the complainant and after preliminary checking of the washing machine, he informed the complainant that the above stated faults of the machine are not properly repairable due to manufacturing defect of the said model but he will try to rectify the same. A repair job was done by the engineer of the OP No.2 in the premises of the complainant but it was totally non satisfactory. The rust affected washing tub of the machine was not replaced and after few hours, the washing machine again started giving electric shock to the operator/family member of the complainant while using the same. In this regard various emails/complaints were sent to the mail ID of the OPs and on toll free number of the OP No.1 and 2, but till date complaint of the complainant is not resolved. Copies of the various emails dated 13.03.2017, 16.03.2017, 18.03.2017, 20.03.2017 and 20.04.2017 sent by the complainant and reply of the mails of the OP are attached.
2. That nobody is entertaining the genuine complaint of the complainant and no step has been taken to resolve the complaint of the OPs. The above said product has now become a scrap because it is not in use due to passing electric current. In the present condition, the use of the machine is very dangerous for life while having electric current in machine body. All the OPs knowingly and vexatiously harassed the complainant. The OP No.1 and 3 have supplied faulty washing machine to the complainant knowing-fully well that the washing machine having inherent manufacturing defect and the OP No.2 has provided negligent and deficient service to the complainant within the warranty period. All the OPs are playing fraud with the complainant by supplying faulty washing machine, intentionally to the complainant. The act and conduct of all the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and it is a great negligence and deficiency in service on their part and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs may be directed to refund the purchase price of the washing machine i.e. Rs.15,000/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental tension and agony and also pay litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service, OP No.3 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their representative and filed written statement, whereby contested the complaint by taking legal objections that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the Forum because he concealed the material facts and further averred that the complainant is trying to take undue advantage of the Consumer Protection Act and even there is no deficiency in providing service by OP No.1 and 2. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased a washing machine, but the factum in regard to manufacturing defect in the machine is categorically denied and further alleged that the complaints of the complainant have been attended by the engineer of the OP and further submitted that there was no deficiency in providing services from OP No.2, seeing the dissatisfaction of the complainant, the service technician asked the complainant for few days time for processing the replacement of washing machine of same model, but the complainant did not accept our offer and not give his go ahead and sent a legal notice and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents i.e. Bill as Ex.C1, Online complaint through e-mail as Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the representative of the OP No.1 and 2 Sh. Sahil Verma, Deputy Manager tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as representative of the OP No.1 and 2 and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The factum in regard to purchase a Godrej Washing Machine bearing Model No.WS 800 PDS from OP No.3, after paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 14.06.2016, is not denied by the OP No.1 and 2, rather these factum have been admitted and also proved by the complainant by placing on the file invoice Ex.C-1 and further the allegation as made by the complainant in the complaint that there is a manufacturing defect in the washing machine and same was conveyed to the OP, vide emails, which are available on the file Ex.C2 to Ex.C7, no doubt, in response to these complaints through email, the OP No.1 and 2 alleged that the engineer of the OP used to visit the house of the complainant for repairing the washing machine but the defect occurred in the machine is only due to mishandling of the said machine but keeping in mind the dissatisfaction of the complainant, the technician of the OP asked the complainant for replacement of the washing machine of same model, but the complainant did not wait for that rather filed the instant complaint.
8. From the pleadings of the OP No.1 and 2, it can be construed that the OP No.1 and 2 indirectly admitted that there is a manufacturing defect in the washing machine and due to that reason, the OP No.1 and 2 categorically mentioned in the reply in last para that the process for replacement of the washing machine of the same model is started, if so then, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the washing machine being reason there is a manufacturing defect in the said machine. So, accordingly the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to replace the washing machine of same model and same price, after getting the old one back and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7000/- for harassment, mental tension and agony to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
11.10.2017 Member President
