Haryana

Karnal

CC/144/2018

Vivek Lamba - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

23 Jul 2019

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.144 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 06.06.2018

                                                         Date of decision:23.07.2019

 

Vivek Lamba son of Shri Prem Kumar Lamba aged about 54 years resident of house no.246, Shaktipuram, Karnal.

…….Complainant 

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Sargam Electronics, plot no.03, Avtar Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its owner.

2. Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co. Ltd. Appliance Division, Plant no.11, Pirojshanagar, Vikroli (W) Mumbai-400079 through its Managing Director.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present   Complainant in person.

                   Shri Abhimanu for OP no.1.

                  Shri Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                                     

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has purchased a washing machine WSA Godrej GWS8502, sr. no.1511000229 from the OP no.1 on 22.2.2016, vide invoice no.Karnal/04241 amounting to Rs.13700/- with the warranty of two years in all respects. After one month the washer and dryer of the washing machine giving huge noise and beside there was leakage in the washer drum of said machine. The complainant made complaint to the OPs and one Prem Pal an Engineer of the OP no.2 visited house of the complainant 4-5 times and attempted to get right the machine but defect could not be removed as there is some manufacturing defect in the machine. There was imbalance in the dryer drum of the machine and ultimately same was broken from many sides and the complainant again lodged complaint no.842691 dated 21.11.2017 to the OPs and then Mr. Gurpreet, Area Sales Manager and aforesaid Prem Pal visited the house of the complainant and they tested the machine and after that they told that the said machine is having manufacturing defect and advised the complainant to contact Sanjay Gupta, the Senior Manager of the company for replacement of machine. Thereafter, complainant contacted aforesaid Sanjay Gupta through telephone but all times he postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly he refused to replace the machine as well as defective parts of the machine. In this way there was deficiency in service in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version stating therein that complainant has purchased one Washing Machine manufactured by Godrej on 22.02.2016, vide invoice no.Karnal-04241 from OP no.1. OP no.1 provided the warranty given by manufacturer hence OP no.2 is right and appropriate party to resolve genuine complaint of complainant.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant purchased the washing machine in question on 22.02.2016. It is denied that the washer and dryer of the machine started giving huge noise after one month of the purchase of Washing Machine. It is also denied that one Prem Pal an engineer of OP no.2 visited the house of the complainant 4-5 times and attempted to get right the machine but defect could not be removed. Infact, complainant lodged his first complaint in this regard on 25.11.2016.The said complaint was resolved after clearing the drain and the washing machine was made to be in perfect working condition. There was no imbalance in the dryer drum of the machine. The same was broken due to mishandling on the part of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the problem of breakage of the spin drum had developed in the Machine of the complainant after almost two and half years of the date of purchase of the machine. The complainant lodged complaint in this regard on 21.11.2017. The service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and after checking the washing machine gave estimate to the complainant for the repair of the same as the washing machine of the complainant had become out of warranty. The complainant refused to pay the said charges. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copy of bill invoice Ex.C1.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Abhimanu Sharma Ex.RW1/A and affidavit of Balram Mudgil Ex.OP2/A and closed their evidence on 15.07.2019 and 20.05.2019 respectively.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             In the present case there is no dispute that complainant purchased the washing machine from OP on 22.02.2016, copy of cash memo is Ex.C1. As per allegations of complainant washing machine has giving problem after one month of its purchase. The washer and dryer giving huge noise and leakage in the washer drum of washing machine. Complainant complained about the defect to the OPs, OPs repaired the defect but defect could not remove by OPs. Complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A deposed that even after engineer of OPs carried out the work and comes to the house of complainant 4-5 times but defect was not rectified from the washing machine. OPs in his reply stated that complainant firstly complained regarding the defect in the machine on 25.11.2016 and thereafter on 21.11.2017. Complainant purchased the washing machine on 22.2.2016. The defect occurred in the machine within warranty period. The OPS stated in thier reply that problem occurred in the washing machine due to mishandling. To prove their contention OPs did not produce any mechanic report or his affidavit or any other document that the washing machine was become defecting due to mishandling. Hence it is well established that defect in the washing machine is still continuing and it was not rectified by the OPs. It is the duty of OPs to rectify the defect during warranty period. Non-rectification of defect within warranty period is amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.             In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the washing machine in question. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.1100/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.07.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member