Delhi

StateCommission

A/251/2017

BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S IFB INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

AMITABH MARWAH

25 Oct 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :25.10.2018

Date of Decision : 15.11.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.251/2017

In the matter of:

 

Shri Bharat Bhushan Jain, Advocate,

Shakahar Building, XI/4239/1,

1 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,

New Delhi-110002.                                                                                        …..Complainant

                                                Versus                                   

 

1. M/s. IFB Industries Ltd.,

Having its Registered Office at

14, Taratolla Road,

•  

 

And its Home Appliances Division at

A-56, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I,

New Delhi-110020.                                                                …..Opposite Party No.1

      (Deleted vide order dt.20.02.18)

 

2. M/s. Thermoking,

D-32, Central Market,

Lajpat Nagar-II,

New Delhi-110024.                                                      .…..Opposite Party No.2

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The complainant has preferred present appeal against order dated 11.04.17 passed by District Forum-X in CC No.594/12 vide which the complaint was dismissed.
2. Facts narrated in the impugned order are that appellant purchased 7 kg digital washing machine from respondent on 24.01.09 with warranty of two years and extended warranty of two more years. Appellant faced problem with the malfunctioning of timer and made a complaint in that regard with the respondent. The respondent told him that parts which were required to be replaced were not available. He sent notice on 18.02.12. Respondent no.1 sent technician to check the machine who broke the leg of washing machine. Thereafter the cabinet and trolly were replaced on charge basis. On 06.06.12 the timer was again repaired but it stopped functioning from August onwards. On 08.01.13 technician of respondent no.1 explained that PCB and dumping elements had to be changed but were not available. Hence the appellant filed complaint for replacement of defective machine.
3. The respondent filed WS pleading that complaint of appellant had been resolved, warranty expired after two years, and complainant was barred by limitation. It gave details of visit to rectify the problem of the appellant. Complaint dated 20.10.11 was rectified on 21.10.11. On 01.08.12 other problems were resolved. Technician inspected the machine on 25.10.12 and found to be functioning. On 08.01.13 PCB and dumping elements were found requiring replacement. On 05.02.13 the same were replaced but rubber sleeve was needed to prevent water leakage.
4. The District Forum found that appellant had placed invoice for Rs.27,500/-, receipt  of Rs.4,585/- for cabinet and trolly issued by Sunny Communication, two job sheets dated 27.12.12. Second job sheet contains additional remark dated 05.02.13 and 26.02.13. Noting dated 05.02.13 was to the effect that rubber sleeve need replacement to prevent water leakage. Second noting dated 26.02.13 mentioned that employee of respondent visited the appellant and spent three hours but appellant had to see the working for next 4-5 days, thereafter the appellant was to sign.
5. The District Forum observed that appellant had not annexed a single job sheet relating to timer and so no credence could be given to said aspect. As per noting dated 26.02.13 the employee of respondent spent three hours in repairing the machine, no complaint was made after that which shows that machine was functioning.
6. Notice of appeal was issued to respondents.  None appeared for respondent no.1 despite service by RAD on 20.02.18. So it has been proceeded exparte. Appellant deleted respondent no.2 on the same date.
7. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The observation of the District Forum that appellant did not make any complaint after 26.02.13 are altogether irrelevant. Complaint had been filed in 2012 before attending vide job sheet dated 27.12.12 on which their exists noting by the appellant. Copy of the said job sheet is at page-49  of the appeal file. After filing of the complaint, there remained no sense of appellant approaching the respondent.
8. Copy of the job sheet dated 27.12.12 shows hand writen words “”machine teedi ho gyi”, “PCB and dumping lament kharab hai”, “rubber sleeve need to be changed”. The same contains a note at the bottom that rubber sleeve needed to be replaced for preventing water leakage with date of 05.02.13 below the said note. It also contains another noting dated 26.02.13 that employee of respondent visited the appellant on said date, spent three hours with the machine but he had to see the working for next 4-5 days, then only he would do the signature.
9. Purchase of the machine by appellant is not disputed. Purchase was made in 2009 with warranty of two years, warranty was extended for another two years meaning thereby that it was to continue till 2013. Cost of extended warranty is included in invoice itself copy of which is at age 22 of appeal file. Copy of receipt dated 20.07.12 for payment of Rs.4,585/- is at page-30 of the appeal file. There was no fun of charging the amount when the complaint was within extended warranty.
10. Counsel for the appellant urged that machine started giving trouble shortly after purchase. Parts which were required to be replaced were not available. Timer was again repaired on 06.06.12 but same stopped functioning from August onwards. On 08.01.13 technician of respondent explained that PCB  and dumping elements had to be changed but same are not available. The said fact find place in job sheet dated 27.12.12 copy of which is at page 49.
11. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that according to WS of the respondent, complaint dated 20.10.11 was rectified on 21.10.11, on 01.08.12 other problems were resolved, on 05.02.13 PCB and dumping elements were replaced. All this shows that there were some defects in the machine. Repeated complaints followed by repeated visits and replacement of PCB and dumping element strengthen the case of the appellant. The rubber sleeve which were needed to prevent water  leakage  were never replaced.
12. We find force in the appeal. Anyhow since now we are in 2018 and machine was purchased in 2009, it does not appeal to reason that respondent should be directed to replace the machine. Appellant himself has made alternative prayer that the respondent may be directed to refund purchase price of Rs.25,700/- along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 24.01.09 / date of purchase of machine. He used the machine for almost four years. So it would be reasonable to refund 50% of the price with interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of refund.
13. Appellant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss, mental agony, inconvenience suffered by him on account of wrongful conduct of the OP. The appellant is an Advocate by profession. Lodging of repeated complaints would have hampered in his profession and caused inconvenience to him. We assess the compensation at Rs.5,000/-.
14. To sum up the appeal is accepted in part, respondent no.1 is directed to refund Rs.12,850/- with interest @9% per annum w.e.f.24.01.09 till the date of refund and Rs.5,000/- as compensation. Respondent to comply with the order within 45 days from receive of copy of this order. Thereafter respondent would be entitled to lift the machine.
15. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
16. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                    

MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)