BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.283 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 23.07.2019

      Date of Decision: 05.05.2023

Niwajish Mahajan aged about  years son of Shri Yudhvir Mahajan, resident of 301, Ramneek Avenue, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s R.C.M.P. International, E. R. 6, G. T. Road, Opp. Old D. C.     Office, Jalandhar through its Proprietor/Owner.

2.       M/s IFB Industries Limited, S. C. F. 58, Phase 11 Near HDFC          Bank, Mohali.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Amit Beri, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OP No.1 exparte.

                    Sh. A. K. Walia, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased built in Dish Washer, make IFB from the OP No.1 on 28.12.2017 vide Invoice No.14970 for Rs.39,750/-. The OP No. 1 assured the complainant that Dish washer manufactured by IFB is the best one in the world and the services of the company are also very good and accordingly, the complainant purchased the same and the OP assured the complainant that the officials of the OP No.1 will visit the house of the complainant to install the Dish washer and to give live demo of the same. The OP No.1 gave the mobile number of one technician to the complainant and the complainant was told that said technician will install and give live demo of the dish washer to the complainant. The complainant called upon said number and the person who picked the complainant and he informed that he is not the official technician of IFB. Then the complainant contacted the OP No. 1 and the OP No.1 gave the customer care number of the OP No.2 and accordingly the complainant requested the OP No.2 on 23.01.2018 to install the dish washer and give the live demo of the same and a ticket No.2000663185 was assigned to the complainant and the complainant was assured that IFB Service Technician will visit the premises of the complainant shortly. But to the surprise of the complainant the said ticket number was cancelled on 25.01.2018 without informing the complainant. Then the complainant again contacted the OP No.2 on 01.02.2018 and new ticket number bearing No.2000694322 was issued to the complainant and the technician of the OP No.2 visited the premises of the complainant, who advised the complainant to get modification of floor level only and he told the complainant that all other requirements are fulfilled for the purpose of installation and he made the comment on the ticket that the site is not ready. After the modification of the floor the complainant contacted the OP No. 1 in July, 2018 and requested to get the Dish washer installed, but the official concerned of OP No.1 told the complainant that to get it installed from its technician, but the complainant refused and insisted to get it installed from I.F.B. official technician. Then on 27.09.2018 again the complainant contacted the OP No.2 and requested to install the dish washer and a new ticket No.2001351571 was assigned to the complainant and the technician of the OP No.2 visited the premises and after checking the site of the complainant and he informed the complainant that he will install the same within 2 or 3 days, but to the surprise of the complainant instead of installing the dish washer the ticket number of the complainant was closed. After that the complainant contacted the OPs time and again for the purpose of getting the dish washer installed, but every time the OPs lingering on the matter on one or the other pretext without assigning any reason. The complainant got served legal notice dated 16.02.2019 upon the OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.39,750/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of dish washer and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 did not appear and ultimately OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and is liable for dismissal. The complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts in the complaint. The suppressed facts are given in this written statement. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act, for being false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. It is further averred that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 is a company of long-standing high repute and as a ruse to extract money without just cause or valid reason. The appliance is installed and under usage but the complainant had wrongly stated i.e. the appliance that the appliance requires installation. It is further averred that the appliance, sold to the complainant, is of highest quality and the complainant has taken delivery of the Dish Washer, after Pre-Delivery Inspection and entire satisfaction and fully complies with the warranties, assurances and specifications, provided for it by the manufacturer, regarding quality and performance of the Dish Washer. The Dish Washer in question has been given to the Complainant after inspection and his entire satisfaction. The Dish Washer was sold, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, hence, the complaint be dismissed with cost. It is further averred that the complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is must for the Complainant to show that the relieves as contemplated under Section 14 can be given for the defect in goods supplied or deficiency in service provided to the Complainant. In the present case, it is crystal clear that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP No.1. Hence, the instant complaint should be dismissed in limine. It is further averred that the complainant had prayed for the refund of price, interest thereupon and compensation etc. The prayer of the complainant is beyond the warranty terms. The OP No.2 had extended limited warranty terms to the complainant. While entertaining and adjudicating the present complaint under the provisions of time bound summary procedure, this Forum is not vested with powers to go beyond the agreed terms and conditions accepted by the Party. The Complainant was under obligation to get installed the appliance from the authorized person of the OP No.2 otherwise the warranty was not applicable. Relevant terms of the warranty is given as under:-

‘1.     This warranty is not valid in case of the following events:

          d)      If the washing machine has been installed, serviced, repaired, opened or tampered by any unauthorized personnel.’

                   The complainant has got installed appliance from outsider and has taken a false stand in the complaint for misleading the Forum. The relationship between the OP No.2 and OP No.1, is on principal to principal basis. It is submitted that, the OP No.2 cannot be held liable for any independent act and omission, if any, committed by the other OP. Thus for the acts of one OP, another OP could not be held liable. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the Built in Dish Washer from the OP No.1 is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is admitted and proved fact that the complainant purchased ‘built in Dish Washer’ of the company of OP No.2 from the OP No.1 vide invoice Ex.C-1 for Rs.39,750/-. It has been alleged by the complainant that the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the officials of the OP No.1 will visit the house of the complainant to install the Dish Washer and to give live demo of the same, but when he contacted the OP No.1, he informed that the technician is to install the Dish Washer and he provided him the number of some technician. When he contacted the technician of IFB, he informed the complainant that he is not the technician of IFB rather he is a private technician. He has proved on record the SMS, vide which the ticket numbers were provided to the complainant from time to time by the OP No.2 and assuring the complainant that the representative of the OP No.2 shall visit their house for installation. The SMSs have been proved from Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, but despite the requests made by the complainant, his grudge was never resolved. 

7.                It has been alleged by the OP No.2 in reply to para No.1 of the complaint in written statement that the OP No.1 is not rendering after sale services for the products manufactured by the OP No.2 as such, the OP No.2 is not expected to assure to the complainant that in case of any problem, OP No.1 will visit the house of the complainant to render the services. The OP has proved on record the job cards to show that there is no deficiency in service. He has proved on record the job cards Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/7 and has alleged that it is the fault of the complainant, who has got installed the Dish Washer from the outside.

8.                From the documents produced on record by both the parties, it is proved that the complainant purchased the Dish Washer from OP No.1. Perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that the complainant has received the Dish Washer of IFB in good condition. There is no document on record to show that the OP No.1 ever agreed to send the representative of OP No.1 for the installation of the Dish Washer. It has been admitted by the complainant that the OP No.1 gave him the number of customer care and some technician. From this, it is proved that the job of the OP No.1 was over when he sold the goods to the satisfaction of the complainant and has provided the number of customer care and the representative of the OP No.2 for the installation of the Dish Washer. This fact has been admitted by OP No.2 also. So, no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 has been proved by the complainant.

9.                The complainant has proved on record the SMS. Perusal of Ex.C-2 shows that the complainant approached the OP No.2 for the installation of the Dish Washer and OP No.2 sent him the messages that the representative of OP No.2 shall visit them shortly and the ticket no.2001751864 was provided to the complainant. On 28, December it was reported by the OP No.2 through message that the ticket number is pending due to plumbing and electrical due. Ex.R2/1 also supports this message. This is a job card and the description mentioned in this document is ‘gave plumbing and electrical advise to the customer. Customer will inform again. Call closed because of customer will inform again’. Again the complainant was provided ticket number 2000663185 and this ticket number was also reported to be pending due to customer appointment and reschedule and as per Ex.R2-2/job card, it was described that ‘location not finalized by the customer. Customer will inform again’. Both the message and this job card is dated 23.01.2018. Then on 25.01.2018 vide Ex.C-4 the complainant was provided ticket number 200670393 and Ex.R2/3 shows that in the column of Part Description, it was reported  that ‘Floor lever was not up to mark. Customer will inform again.’ Again on 01.02.2018 it was reported that ‘site floor lever was not ready for installation’, as per Ex.R2/4. Message was also sent to the complainant that the ticket was requested for cancellation owing to site not ready. Ex.R2/5 is of 27.09.2018 and it was reported in Part Description that visited customer house and found that Dish Washer installed by outsider (unauthorized person). Similarly, Ex.R2/6 and Ex.R2/7 show that the representative visited the house of the complainant and found that Dish Washer was already installed. Similar was the reply of the OP No.2 even after receipt of legal notice Ex.C-6. In Ex.C-9, the OP No.2 has specifically replied that the complainant is regularly utilizing the appliance and there is no problem in the appliance nor the appliance is suffering from the assembly defects. The complainant has produced on record the photographs of the Dish Washer to show that the same has remained uninstalled till now, but perusal of these photographs nowhere show the date when the same was clicked and these photographs pertain to Dish Washer purchased by the complainant from the OPs nor there is any mention of the name of the company on this Dish Washer. It cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the representative of OP No.2 visited the premises for installation, but the fault was found on the part of the complainant and moreso, as per the job record and messages, the Dish Washer has been installed by the complainant from the outsider person. So, from all the angles the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

05.05.2023         Member                          Member              President