BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 246 of 2016
Date of Institution : 19.09.2016
Date of Decision : 23.08.2017
Inder Pal Singh son of Shri Mangal Singh Fazil, resident of House No.968, Chopra Street, Sirsa District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1 M/s J.P. Trading Company, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its proprietor.(Authorized Dealer of IFB Washing Machine).
2 Consumer Care Centre, IFB Washing Machine Company, Gali Dr. Amar Singh Sudhu, Near Parshu Ram Chowk, Sirsa through its Incharge.
3 IFB Company Industries Limited, L-1, Verna Electronic City, Verna Salicete, Goa-403722 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT, MEMBER.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
Sh. Pankaj Singal, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased IFB Washing Fully Automatic Senorita Sx6.00 Kg, Colour Silver, Chassis No. 025769 vide bill No.1080 dated 17.09.2012 for Rs.26,300/- from the op no.1. The op no.1 issued above said bill to complainant and assured for the guarantee of the above said machine in all respect and also assured for removing its defects in all respects and in case of manufacturing defect it may be replaced with new one from the company. In this manner, op no.1 is authorized dealer, op no.2 is consumer care centre and op no.3 is manufacturing of IFB washing machine. It is further averred that after purchasing the said machine, same became defective and raised serious and loud noise. Complaint was made to the op no.2 and engineer of company visited the premises of complainant and changed the bearing of drum of machine but all in vain and it could not be adjusted and late on it was again replaced 3-4 times by company. But due to non removing the defects, the company has replaced the drum of the machine in January, 2015 but in spite of it, the defect could not be removed rather it increased day by day. The gate of machine was also not working in proper manner. The complainant made so many complaints to the ops vide complaint No. 28397844 in December, 2014 and later on so many complaints were made to the ops form time to time since December 2014 till date but all in vain and now lastly complaint was made on 13.09.2016 to the company vide complaint no.18396942 and company engineer visited the premises of complainant and refused to remove the defect of machine rather said that this is a manufacturing defect and it can be replaced by the company and is not in repairable condition. Now the machine is completely out of order and not in working condition. In this manner, the ops have refused to admit the claim of the complainant and the act of the complainant fall under the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant is suffering from serious mental tension, pain and harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal and maintainability. On merits, it is denied that the answering op ever assured and gave guarantee for the washing machine. The answering op only sold the sealed product of the company, rest of the grievance, if any are between the complainant and the manufacturing company. Moreover, the complainant is not seeking any relief against the answering op and has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its separate written statement took certain preliminary objections that op no.3 cannot be held liable for any independent act and omission, if any committed by the other ops. The relationship of ops is on principal to principal basis. That the complainant had purchased the appliance on 17.9.2012 and present complaint has been filed on or around 19.9.2016 i.e. after the expiry of period of four years. As per provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for the institution of the complaint is two years. Thus, the present complaint is time barred and is liable to be dismissed and that complainant has filed this baseless complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the appliance without having produced any expert opinion/ documentary proof in the form of evidence to prove that the subject appliance suffers from the problems as alleged or to establish any manufacturing defect in the appliance in question. On merits, while denying the contents of the complaint, it is submitted that technician of op no.3 visited the house of complainant in January, 2015 and replaced the drum bearings of the appliance. The washing machine or drum bearings have not developed any of the defects. There was no problem of serious or loud noise in the appliance. The complaint was received on 20.1.2015. There is neither any customer care centre as mentioned in the head note nor the complainant had lodged complaint with the op no.2. The op no.3 had provided toll free India number where the customers are registering their complaints. The said complaint dated 20.1.2015 lodged by the complainant was attended promptly. During inspection, it was found that the drum bearings of the washing machine were worn out due to overloading. The said drum bearings were replaced on free of costs basis and the appliance in proper working condition was demonstrated to the complainant. Exact size drum bearings were fitted in the appliance and there was no question of its non adjustment. Again no complaint was lodged with op no.3 qua the drum bearings. The company has not replaced the drum and complainant has concocted a false story. The voice level in the appliance is normal and there is no part known as gate of the appliance. The door and other parts of the appliance are working properly. It is further submitted that on 13.9.2016 complaint was received and was promptly attended. The op no.3 has not received any of the alleged complaint from the complainant in December, 2014. The complaint bearing no.283697844 appears to be a fake number and is not issued by the ops. The op no.3 has not started issuing complaint number starting from “2” series. On 13.9.2016 the complaint was promptly attended. The plastic door handle was broken due to external force. The said part was replaced on free of costs basis on goodwill gesture although the same was not covered under warranty. The appliance was not suffered from the manufacturing defects and is continuously utilized by the complainant without experiencing any problems. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. None appeared on behalf of op no.2 despite service and therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C2. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Johri, Executive Taxation Ex.R1, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R2 and op no.3 also produced copy of warranty card Annexure 3/1, copy of job card Annexure 3/2 and copy of job card dated 13.9.2016 Annexure R-3/3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. It is established on record that complainant purchased the washing machine in question manufactured by op no.3 from opposite party no.1 on 17.9.2012 for Rs.26,300/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C2. It is also established on record that washing machine was having four years warranty as is evident from copy of warranty card and same was to be expired on 16.9.2016 as is evident from copies of job cards. As the complainant is alleging defects in the washing machine within warranty period and as per warranty during 48 months from the date of purchase of the new washing machine all the parts of the washing machine which prove to be defective in workmanship and/or materials shall be replaced or repaired free of charge on intimation to the company/ company’s authorized service centre nearest to the place where the appliance is installed, therefore, ops no.1 to 3 are responsible for carrying out the necessary repairs of the washing machine in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct all the opposite parties to carry out the necessary repairs of the washing machine in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from today. If they are unable to carry out the necessary repairs to the entire satisfaction of the complainant within the stipulated time then they will be liable to replace the washing machine with new one as per the choice of the complainant subject to adjustment of the cost of old machine i.e. 26,300/- within further 15 days, failing which they will be liable to refund the price Rs.26,300/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual payment. The complainant is also directed to produce the washing machine at the premises of Consumer Care Center of op no.2 immediately on receipt of copy of this order under proper receipt. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 23.08.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
