DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.543 of 11-12-2013

Decided on 27-05-2014

Rajinder Sharma aged about 41 years S/o Bihari Lal Sharma R/o H. No.33453, Street No.13, Partap Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Town, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044, through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Malya Electronics, Street No.2, Kanhiya Nagar, Dr.Kishori Ram Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

3.M/s Samsung Service Centre, Gaushala Market, Near Krishna Continental, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Manager.

4.M/s Bajaj Finance Limited, G.T Road, Grover Tower, Near Omega MRI, Bathinda, through its Managing Director/Branch Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1

& 3.

Opposite party Nos.2 and 4 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on the allurement of the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased one washing machine for Rs.14,000/- vide cash memo No.734 from the opposite party No.2, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 with two years warranty. At the time of selling of the abovesaid washing machine, the opposite parties assured that it is of the best quality. Since the date of its purchase, the abovesaid washing machine is defective and is not running smoothly as there is manufacturing defect in it. The clothes in the washing machine in question caught fire and burnt. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3, the service centre of the opposite party No.1 with above mentioned complaints, it failed to rectify the defect and asked him to contact at the toll free number of the opposite party No.1 and lodged the complaint with the opposite party No.1. The complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 on the toll free No.180030008282 and lodged the complaint with it vide complaint No.8458232132 on 29.11.2013. The complainant received the call from the telephone No.+911203911900 of the representative of the opposite party No.1, he assured the complainant that the service engineer of the company would inspect the washing machine in question within a day or so. The service engineer of the opposite party No.1 visited the house of the complainant and inspected the washing machine and assured him that he shall take up the matter with their higher officials for its replacement. Thereafter the complainant again called on the toll free number of the opposite party No.1 on 2.12.2013, he has been assured by the representative of the company that the approval has been granted and washing machine in question shall be replaced with new one within hours, but the abovesaid washing machine has not been replaced with new one till date and the opposite parties have not been responding the telephonic calls of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that he belongs to a lower middle class and has raised the loan from the opposite party No.4 to purchase the abovesaid washing machine. Despite his repeated requests, the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defects in the abovesaid washing machine. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the washing machine in question with new one or in the alternative to refund its price alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. since 7.10.2013 till payment besides cost and compensation.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that under the warranty their obligation is to set right the abovesaid washing machine by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The performance of the abovesaid washing machine depends upon the handling of the product. No assurance of the replacement of the abovesaid washing machine was given by the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 under the terms of the warranty and the complainant cannot claim more than she has agreed to. As and when the complainant has lodged the complaint, the service centre person visited the complainant and his washing machine has been duly serviced within the reasonable time without any charges. However, as a goodwill gesture the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are still ready to render the service to the complainant with regard to the washing machine in question if required. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 further pleaded that the complainant never sent warranty card bearing stamp of seller as per the exclusion Clause No.1 printed at the back of warranty card and never submitted it to the nearest authorized service centre of the company within 2 weeks of the purchase of the abovesaid washing machine, in such circumstances the warranty conditions are not applicable. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect or inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of her allegations. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 further pleaded that in the absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be paid and have referred to III (2000) CPJ 544 and 1999 (I) CPR 20. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have denied all the allegations mentioned by the complainant in his complaint.

3. Notice by hand/dasti has been sent to the opposite party Nos.2 and 4. The opposite party No.2 has received the notice on dated 3.1.2014 and opposite party No.4 has refused to receive the summon on dated 4.3.2014, but despite service of summons none appeared on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 and 4 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against them.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The washing machine purchased by the complainant was defective as it was not working properly and the clothes in it caught the fire and burnt. In this regard the complainant has placed on file Photographs Ex.C5 to C7 and damaged ladies suit, Ex.C10, which shows that the suit has been burnt in the washing machine in question. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have placed on file Customer Service Record Card, Service Order No.4164339597 dated 29.11.2013, Ex.OP1/2, which shows Symptom 1:-04 Quality/Trouble; Symptom 2:-99 Others and Symptom 3:-03 Damage on the clothes. A further perusal of Customer Service Record Card, Ex.OP1/2 also shows that the complaint is made on 29.11.2013 and repair start on 30.11.2013 and complete on 30.11.2013 and in this job card the remarks is given as 'Refused for repair'. The Customer Service Record Card, Service Order No.4165643063 dated 21.12.2013, Ex.OP1/3, shows that Symptom 1:-L3 operation; Symptom 2:-01 Doesn't work; Symptom 3:-03 Doesn't spin/drain; Repair Start Time:-21.12.2013 and Repair Complete Time:-21.12.2013. The Customer Service Record Card, Service Order No.4164691283/1675 dated 5.12.2013, Ex.OP1/4, also shows that Symptom 1:-04 Quality/Trouble; Symptom 2:-99 others; Symptom 3:-03 Damage on the clothes; Repair Start Time:-5.12.2013 and Repair Complete Time:-5.12.2013, in this job card the remarks is given as 'Customer Refused the repair'. The evidence led by the opposite parties is entirely different than the written statement filed by them. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have refused any defect in the product, whereas their job sheets Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 show that there is defect in the abovesaid washing machine and it has damaged the clothes. Moreover the photographs placed on file show that the clothes have damaged/burnt as these have been used by the complainant in the abovesaid washing machine. A perusal of ladies suit, Ex.C10, shows that it has been damaged/burnt in the abovesaid washing machine, which is sufficient to prove that there is manufacturing defect in it. The complainant has purchased the abovesaid washing machine for Rs.14,000/- on dated 7.10.2013 vide Ex.C2 and defect has occurred on 29.11.2013 i.e. within one month from the date of its purchase. If for the arguments sake we believe the version of the opposite parties that the warranty is of one year has been given on the washing machine in question, in that case also the defect has appeared within one month of its purchase.

7. As discussed above the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have sold the defective washing machine to the complainant. The Judicial notice can be taken that in the normal case, the product like washing machine are sold, demo's are given to educate the customer regarding its functioning and proper operation, but in their written statement the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have not pleaded that these demos were ever given to the complainant at the time of selling of the abovesaid washing machine. The opposite party No.2 has not appeared before this Forum despite receiving the summons. It has sold the washing machine in question to the complainant and intentionally has not filed its written statement before this Forum, which shows that the opposite party No.2 is fully aware of the fact that the abovesaid washing machine is defective. Moreover the opposite party No.2 was the right person to tell the Court/Forum whether 'domo's' after the purchase of the washing machine in question was given or not. Despite repeated repairs carried out by the opposite party No.3, it failed to rectify the washing machine in question, which itself is sufficient to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the abovesaid washing machine.

8. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3, thus this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost against the opposite party Nos.1 and 3, the compliance of this order be done jointly and severally. This complaint is also accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost against the opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.4. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.14,000/- (As per Ex.C2) to the complainant. At the same time the complainant will handover the washing machine in question to the opposite party Nos.1 and 3.

9. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

10. In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the interest @9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.14,000/- till realization.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

27-05-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member