Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/54

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S J.S Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        54

Date of Institution :   19.02.2016

Date of Decision :     13.06.2016

 

Rajesh Kumar Deora s/o Madan Mohan Deora, r/o House No. B-II-36, Mohalla Sethian, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s J S Electronics through its Proprietor Jarnail Singh, Circular Road, Near Axis Bank, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

2. Mr. Nipum Singhal, Vice President (North) Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd, Plot No. 2, Industrial Area, Kalkajee, New Delhi-110019.

                                       ....Opposite Parties(Ops)

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Complainant in person alongwith Sh Madan Mohan, his authorized representative,

    Sh Mandeep Chanana, Ld Counsel for OPs.

    

   (Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective washing machine and for also directing Ops to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 11,000/-as litigation expenses.

   2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a semi automatic washing machine make Lloyd of 7.8 Kg capacity from OP-1 vide cash memo no. 4065 dated 24.08.2015. It is contended that when complainant started washing clothes in same, it started tearing the clothes. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP-1, who asked him to make complaint about this at Customer Care Centre of Company, complainant did the same and then, OP Company sent a mechanic to check the machine, who checked the machine and said that there is a manufacturing defect in it and recommended the change of said defective machine. On the recommendation of the mechanic, the OPs changed the washing machine in December 2015 with the new one and had supplied the washing machine of same batch, which was supplied earlier. Same problem have to be faced by complainant in exchanged washing machine. Complainant made many requests to Ops to change the same with some other batch or model, but all his efforts to get it replaced bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc  and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief of replacement of said machine. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 24.02.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to OPs.

   4                                                On receipt of the notice, OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as it has not been verified and it is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties and is therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that on receipt of complaint from complainant, said washing machine was duly replaced and after demonstration of working of machine, the complainant expressed satisfaction and again on complaint by complainant,  mechanic of OPs visited the premises of complainant  and checked his machine and after checking found it OK, but for the satisfaction of complainant, he asked for replacement of said part to which complainant did not agree and insisted for replacement of washing machine. It is averred that replacement is not permissible because as per warranty, only defective parts can be changed to which Ops are still ready. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissed of complaint.

   5                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

   6                                           The ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Bawa as Ex.OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2  to 2/7 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

   7                                We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

   8                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a semi automatic washing machine of Lloyd make of 7.8 Kg capacity from OP-1 vide cash memo no. 4065 dated 24.08.2015 Ex C-2. It is contended that when complainant started washing clothes in said machine, it started tearing the clothes and complainant made complaint regarding this fact to OP-1, who asked him to make complaint at Customer Care Centre of Company, complainant did the same and then, mechanic of OPs came to his house to check the machine, who after checking said that there is a manufacturing defect in it and advised for change of said defective machine and on it, OPs changed the washing machine with new one of same batch. Same problem have to face by complainant in this washing machine also. Several requests made by complainant to Ops to replace the said washing machine, bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Prayer for accepting the present complaint is made. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 2.

   9                               To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OPs averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the said washing machine and thus, no legitimate reason can be made out to entitle the complainant for replacement of said machine because defect if any, that has occurred in washing machine is repairable. Also, complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove his case. Replacement is permissible only in case when defect developed within the period of warranty is not repairable, but in instant case, no defect is found by Engineer and machine was okay. There is no manufacturing defect in said article and replacement of only defective parts is possible. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service or trade mal practice on the part of OPs  as they sent their Service Engineer to the house of complainant immediately to check and remove the defect, but on checking, he found it ok, but for satisfaction of complainant he asked for replacement of some parts. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as they have always been ready and willing to repair the defect and there is no manufacturing defect in washing machine in question. Counsel for Ops has made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

   10                         We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a washing machine, which has some defect. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of Ops and made several requests to change the same, but Ops paid no heed to his request. In reply, stand of OPs is that there is no manufacturing defect in said washing machine. It is brought before the Forum that on complainant by complainant, Ops changed the washing machine and again after complaint by complainant, Ops immediately sent a mechanic to check the machine, who after checking found it okay and said that there is no manufacturing defect and only on insistence of complainant, he asked for replacement of some parts. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs and asserted that replacement of machine is not permissible in cases, where defect is removable and repairable. Careful perusal of job sheets from Ex OP-5 to 7 clearly reveal that it is mentioned in Technician Remarks that ‘Cloth Tearing Problem, demo given set ok and but for satisfaction of customer, pulster is to be changed’. Therefore, we have found that there is some defect and keeping in view the early replacement and facts and circumstances of the case, Ops are directed to remove the defect and do repair and change the defective parts free of costs as per satisfaction of complainant within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2000/-complainant as cost of litigation. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

   Announced in open Forum:

   Dated: 13.06.2016

   Member                Member            President (Parampal Kaur)         (P Singla)             (Ajit Aggarwal)