Punjab

Sangrur

CC/74/2023

Jyoti Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Khurana Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Devi Lal

19 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 74

 Instituted on:   03.03.2023

                                                                        Decided on:     19.11.2024

 

Jyoti Grover W/o Shri Ashish Kumar Grover, House No.56, Partap Nagar, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     M/s. Khurana Electronics, Outside Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

2.     Whirlpool Corporate office address: M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd. Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122002 Haryana through is authorized signatory.

3.     Whirlpool India Limited, Plot No.4-A, MIDC, Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirur, Distt. Pune, Maharashtra 412220 through its Managing Director.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             : Shri  Devi Lal, Adv.              

For OP No1                           : Exparte.

For OP No.2&3                     : Shri G.S.Saini, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill                           :President

Sarita Garg                                                :Member

Kanwaljeet Singh                                      :Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.    

 

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a Whirlpool washing machine (automatic) 8 Kg top load Model number 84501100 from the OP number 1 vide invoice number 767 dated 30.12.2021 for Rs.19,900/-. The OPs number 2 and 3 are the manufacturers of the said machine and the washing machine in question was having two years warranty.  Further case of complainant is that from the very beginning the washing machine in question was not working properly.  In the month of December, 2022 the washing machine started to give problems as the quality of the washing was not upto the standard as the washing machine leaves spots of detergent on washed clothes and the spinner of the washing machine was not drying the clothes properly.  The complainant lodged the complaint with the Ops and the complainant received a text message from the OPs that complaint was registered vide service request number CHA17012309526 on 18.12.2022, as such the agent of the OPs number 2 and 3 visited the house of complainant and after checking, he said that now the washing machine will work properly.  Further case of complainant is that after one month, the washing machine again developed same problem, as such the complainant again lodged the complaint with the OPs vide service request number CHA17012309526 on 17.01.2023 and again the agent of the OPs visited the house of the complainant to check the washing machine in question, who after checking told the complainant that the washing machine was suffering with manufacturing defect, which cannot be rectified. The complainant also got checked the said washing machine from another engineer, who also told that the washing machine in question suffers from the manufacturing defect. The complainant requested the Ops to replace the defective washing machine with a new one, but the OPs refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund its price i.e. Rs.19,900/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, pain and harassment and further an amount of Rs.22,000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that opposite party number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was proceeded against exparte on 31.05.2023.

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 and 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Commission and that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, sale and purchase of the washing machine in question is admitted. However, it is stated that in the month of December, 2022 the complainant lodged the complaint with OP number 2 and the OP number 2 repaired the above said washing machine. Again complainant got registered a complaint regarding the washing machine and the OPs deputed their engineer, who found minor defect and the engineer of the OP again successfully repaired the washing machine on 27.04.2023. However, any manufacturing defect in the washing machine has been denied.  It is further stated that after few days when the company engineer approached the complainant to sign the letter of satisfaction then complainant refused for the same on 14.05.2023. Thereafter, the OPs sent letter dated 25.05.2023 to the complainant through postal receipt to the complainant.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint are said to be wrong and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1  affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and Ex.C-6 is the affidavit of Shri Mohinder Kumar Expert and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 to Ex.OP2&3/3 documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a Whirlpool Washing machine top load having 8 KG capacity for Rs.19,900/- on 30.12.2021 from OP number 1 as is evident from the copy of the tax invoice Ex.C-2, which was having two years warranty.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that from the very beginning the washing machine in question was not working properly and as such complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs and thereafter the complainant received a text message that complaint was registered vide service request number CHA16122276388 on 18.12.2022, screen shot of which is on record as Ex.C-4, as such the agent of the OPs number 2 and 3 visited the house of complainant and after checking, he said that now the washing machine will work properly.  Further case of complainant is that after one month, the washing machine again developed same problem, as such the complainant again lodged the complaint with the OPs vide service request number CHA17012309526 on 17.1.2023, screen shot of which is on record as Ex.C-3 and again the agent of the OPs visited the house of the complainant to check the washing machine in question, who after checking told the complainant that the washing machine was suffering with manufacturing defect, which could not be rectified. The complainant also got checked the said washing machine from Shri Mohinder Kumar of Anjali Electronics, whose report is on record is Ex.C-5, wherein he has clearly stated that there is manufacturing defect in the motor of washing machine, which is not repairable and further to support this fact he has also placed on record his  affidavit  Ex.C-6. The complainant requested the Ops to replace the defective washing machine with a new one, but the OPs refused to do so. Though the technician of the OPs visited two times to the complainant to set right the issue of the washing machine but he failed to set right the defective washing machine, which shows that the washing machine supplied to the complainant was defective one. All the evidence of the complainant is duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1. More over, the OP number 1 chose to remain exparte.  It is no doubt true that the washing machine developed defects twice and the mechanic of the OPs visited twice to repair the washing machine in question but he failed to remove the defects therein as there was manufacturing defect in the washing machine.   In the circumstances, we find that ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to refund to the complainant the cost of washing machine so spent by her.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.19,900/- being the cost of defective washing machine alongwith interest @ 7% per annum  from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 3.3.2023 till realization. We further direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall return the old defective washing machine to the OPs at the time of getting the refund of the amount.

7.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        November 19, 2024.