Haryana

Kaithal

426/19

Balraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pooja Electric Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Jagdeep Dhull

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

                   

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.426/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 12.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:01.06.2023.

Balraj aged about 35 years son of Sh. Abhay Ram, resident of near Baba Bishanpuri Mandir, Village Pai, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Pooja Electric Store, 69-Anaj Mandi, Pundri through its Prop.
2. Lloyd Electric & Engineering ltd. Corporate Office at Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, India through its General Manager.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Jagdeep Dhull, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. D.S.Rana, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                (Defence of OP No.1 struck off).

                Sh. Akhil Bhasin, Adv. for the OP No.2.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Balraj-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased a washing machine make Lloyd LWMF70 having Sr.No.20150700188 vide bill No.6144 dt. 15.10.2015 from the OP No.1 for the sum of Rs.23,500/- against the warranty of six years.  After some time from its purchase, the working of the washing machine was not upto the mark and has break down (stopped to start).  The complainant lodged a complaint with the Lloyd Service Centre vide complaint No.3010193319256 dt. 30.10.2019 but till date, the OPs did not remove the defects from the washing machine.  It is relevant to mention here that a person from Lloyd Service Centre has visited the premises of complainant only once, who told the complainant that there are some manufacturing defects in the washing machine.  The complainant requested the OPs several times to remove the defects from the washing machine or to replace the same with the new one but the OPs did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission.  OP No.1 did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities, so, the defence of OP No.1 was struck off vide order dt. 29.08.2022 passed by this Commission.  OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not produced any expert report/test report corroborative to his claim stating that the product was defective; that it is well settled law that manufacturing defect in the product can only be proved by way of opinion of expert; that the complainant had purchased the washing machine on 15.10.2015 and thereafter enjoyed the benefits of the washing machine for a period of more than three years; that the complainant registered the first complaint with the answering OP on 06.03.2019 which was cancelled as the complainant did not respond when contacted by answering OP service technician; thereafter, another call was registered on 13.03.2019 wherein PCB was replaced and call was successfully closed; thereafter, call was received on 30.10.2019 which was cancelled as when the answering OP service technician visited the complainant, there was no electricity at complainant’s home; thereafter, call was received from the complainant only on 07.11.2019 and on that call, complainant was informed to pay service charges as the washing machine was out of warranty to which the complainant refused; there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased a washing machine make Lloyd LWMF70 having Sr.No.20150700188 vide bill No.6144 dt. 15.10.2015 from the OP No.1 for the sum of Rs.23,500/- against the warranty of six years.  After some time from its purchase, the working of the washing machine was not upto the mark and has break down (stopped to start).  The complainant lodged a complaint with the Lloyd Service Centre vide complaint No.3010193319256 dt. 30.10.2019 but till date, the OPs did not remove the defects from the washing machine.  It is further argued that a person from Lloyd Service Centre has visited the premises of complainant only once, who told the complainant that there are some manufacturing defects in the washing machine.  It is further argued that despite several requests, the OPs did not remove the defects from the washing machine.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that the complainant had purchased the washing machine in question on 15.10.2015 and thereafter enjoyed the benefits of the washing machine for a period of more than three years.  It is further argued that the complainant registered the first complaint with the OP No.2 on 06.03.2019 which was cancelled as the complainant did not respond when contacted by OP service technician.  Thereafter, another call was registered on 13.03.2019 wherein PCB was replaced and call was successfully closed.  It is further argued that another call was received on 30.10.2019 which was cancelled as when the OP No.2 service technician visited the complainant, there was no electricity at complainant’s home.  It is further argued that last call was received from the complainant only on 07.11.2019 and on that call, complainant was informed to pay service charges as the washing machine was out of warranty to which the complainant refused.  Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has placed reliance upon the case law titled as M/s. Samarpan Samiti Samarpan Bhawan, Delhi Vs. Navneet Bansal etc. decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 14.07.2020 reported in 2020(3) CPR 8.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has placed on file copy of Instruction Manual regarding Fully Automatic Top Loading Washing Machine as per Mark-A and copy of warranty scheme of washing machine as per Mark-B, wherein it is mentioned that “2 years-Comprehensive and 5 year warranty on wash motor”.  Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 also made statement on 11.05.2023 that they are ready to repair the washing machine in question free of cost.  Whereas, on the other hand, as per invoice Annexure-C1, the OP No.1 has mentioned the warranty of six years but they have not placed on file any document from which it could be proved that there was six years warranty against the washing  machine in question.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

10.            Thus, in view of statement of ld. counsel for the OP No.2 given on 11.05.2023 as mentioned above, we direct the OPs No.1 & 2 jointly and severally to repair the washing machine in question free of cost to the satisfaction of complainant within 45 days from today and OP No.1 is burdened to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly. 

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:01.06.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.