BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.339 of 2014

Date of Instt. 29.9.2014

Date of Decision :02.01.2015

A.K.Arora, 104, Ranjit Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Quick Customer Electronic Services Pvt.Ltd, 5th Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp.Hotel VITS Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.

2. The Manager Next Retail Shop, Next Jalandhar, Near Swani Motors, G.T.Road, Jalandahr.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.NS Jagdeva Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties on the averments that on 15.11.2013 the complainant purchased an Electrolux Washing Machine of 8 Kg capacity from the opposite parties authorized dealer, namely Next Retail Shop, Next Jalandhar, Near Swani Motors, G.T.Road, Jalandahr vide bill No.8761163002 dated 15.11.2013 at a cash price of Rs.10,900/-. The washing machine is backed by a warranty of 2 years for any manufacturing defect, repair/replacement of spare parts. It is alleged that no one turned up for installation and demonstration of the washing machine and same was unpacked, installed and operated by the complainant on 20.12.2013. In the dry run itself, they observed that the drier was not generating full speed. The drier was knocking heavily even while loaded to half the capacity. Instruction manual states that in case of sound from the spinner/drier the spinner is to be opened and the laundry relaid evenly. Hence the spinner had to be opened again and again to relay the laundry. The procedure itself was disgusting and adding to the disgust was incomplete drying nearly 70% and retaining 30% of dirty water. As the drier was functioning very abnormally they lodged a complaint on helpline No.18602001212 on 22.12.2013 registered as ELUD2212130006 and informed the opposite party No.2 also. The technician, who turned up observed:-

a) Knocking in all 3 attempts he made.

b) Speed not developing and the clothes not getting dried, for insufficient speed.

c) He assigned the knocking to the light plastic body of the machine.

d) The defects were mentioned in the inspection report, as the technician had no solution to offer.

2. The company closed the complaint on their own vide message from LM-PESERVE on 25.12.2013, this was the second deficiency in service. On 29.3.2014 they lodged yet another complaint registered as ELUD2903140039. The same technician visited again, found the same defects persisting but offered no solution, even after taking to his senior. The defects were once again mentioned in the inspection report. The complaint was once again unilaterally closed on 31.3.2014 vide message from LM-CESPL citing the false reason of non-availability of bill. This is the 3rd deficiency in service. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the washing machine alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding want of cause of action, no deficiency in service, complaint having been filed with malafide intention, not approaching the Forum with clean hands, jurisdiction, locus-standi etc. On merits they admitted the purchase of the machine by the complainant but pleaded that it has warranty of one year with regard to repair of the washing machine. The complainant is disputing the technical aspect of the machine as he has pointed out that drier of the machine does not work at full speed. The allegation levelled by the complainant is vague unsupported by any technical evidence. The complainant can not check the RPM just by looking at the machine drier motor. Complaint of knocking is totally incorrect as the machine was not placed on a levelled surface which creates noise at the time of the drying of clothes. They further pleaded that the washing machine dry clothes upto 70% only. Complainant had lodged a complaint on 22.12.2013 which was duly attended to by the service engineer. The complainant made another complaint which was also attended to by the opposite party engineer. No defect was found by the service engineer. The complaints so referred to by the complainant are not manufacturing defects rather same were resolved by advising the complainant. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The defects so pointed out by the complainant are not manufacturing defects. The bill is a precondition for attending the complaint. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C6 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties and also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite parties.

7. It is not disputed that complainant has purchased the washing machine from opposite party No.2 vide cash memo dated 15.11.2013 Ex.C2 for Rs.10,900/-. Complainant contended that the washing compartment of the washing machine is working properly but its drier is having some manufacturing defect. He contended that the technician of the opposite parties who came to attend the complaint found that the drier was knocking in all the three attempts made by him and further the speed of the drier was slow and clothes were not getting dried. He further contended that old motor has been fitted in the washing machine and there is manufacturing defect in it and opposite parties are liable to replace it. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the washing machine. He further contended that the opposite party No.1 is customer care unit of the manufacturing company and whereas the opposite party No.2 is dealer. He further contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the machine and the service engineer of the opposite party who visited the premises of the complainant on his complaint found that machine was placed on un-even surface and knocking in the drier was due to this fact. He further contended that complainant has not followed the instructions which are necessary for proper functioning of the machine. He further contended that according to the terms and conditions, the opposite parties are at the most liable to repair the machine, if there is any defect in it. He further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He further contended that defects pointed out by the complainant with regard to the slow speed of the spinner, motor are totally wrong. He further contended that defect regarding slow speed of the spinner can not be proved without help of some technical expert. He further contended that the machine is semi automatic machine and all the semi automatic washing machines dry clothes upto 70% only as mentioned in the brochure itself. He further contended that when a service engineer visited the house of the complainant, he pointed certain defects which have been noted down by him in the job card and said nothing down of defects pointed out by the complainant does not amount of admission and can not be termed as defects in the washing machine. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. The complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the washing machine. At the time of arguments, he was asked if he wants to impead manufacturer but he refused to do so. However complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the washing machine in question. The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the washing machine.

8. The main grievance of the complainant is regarding knocking of the spinner compartment and clothes being not dried fully due to insufficient speed of the motor. The machine purchased by the complainant is semi automatic machine and in semi automatic washing machine the clothes are not dried fully. In absence of any expert evidence and other reliable evidence, the allegations of the complainant that old motor has been fitted in the machine and spinner does not rotate at sufficient speed can not be accepted. So far as, knocking of the spinner compartment is concerned, according to the opposite parties it was due to placing of the machine on un-even surface. The spinner some time produces knocking due to improper placing of clothes in it. The opposite parties have produced the copy of job sheet Ex.OP1/1 wherein it is mentioned that set made OK, test check and floor balance not proper and explained to the customer. The complainant has refused to sign this job card, this fact is mentioned on it. As per written arguments, there is warranty of 24 months from the date of bill. The machine is still in warranty period. So if there is any defect in the washing machine of the complainant, the opposite parties are duty bound to rectify the same. Even during warranty period the dealer can not wash hands and can say he is not liable in any manner.

9. In Balaji Motors Vs. Devendra & ANR, II(2013) CPJ 534(NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

"We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. Vide impugned order passed by the State Commission, it has only been stated that since the complaint was made to the dealer within the warranty period, it was the duty of the dealer to attend to the same and repair the vehicle. The petitioner was directed to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the appellant within three months. We do not find anything wrong with this order. If the vehicle is presented before the dealer within the warranty period, it is his duty to attend to the complaints, if any, and rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. In case, the dealer thinks that there is no defect in the vehicle, it can give a certificate to this effect that the vehicle is fit from all angles. Such a certificate shall be open to scrutiny by any expert/specialized agency. However, the dealer can not escape his responsibility of attending to the complaints if made before it during the warranty period".

10. So both the parties are duty bond to rectify the defect, if any in the washing machine.

11. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to send their service engineer or technician to the premises of the complainant and he will check the washing machine of the complainant and rectify the defects in it, if any free of cost within 15 days of receipt of copy of this order. Complainant is also awarded Rs.1000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

02.01.2015 Member President