1. Complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) alleging therein that he purchased one IFB Washing Machine, Model Senorita DX in his son’s name D.K. Goyal on 19.03.2010 having four years warranty but the defect of vibration & abnormal noise occurred in the machine from the very beginning and thus a complaint was lodged with the OPs and mechanic from service centre of OP visited his house but he failed to detect the fault. Thereafter other mechanics also visited to check the machine in question but the defect could not be rectified despite many visits. Due to the said fault, other parts of the machine like plastic tub, shocker, suspension, spring, control panel, door rubber & weight etc. also got damaged within one year. After that, the complainant informed to Vice President, Consumer Care Cell, Mr. A.S. Nagi of the company regarding the problem in the washing machine whereupon Mr. Sharma, the Regional Inchage of Consumer Care Cell, Chandigarh visited the house of complainant in first week of May, 2011 and requested the complainant to lift the machine to Chandigarh regional centre for proper repair and as such, the machine was taken to Chandigarh on 09.05.2011 and was returned on 02.06.2011 after repair. However, the machine worked satisfactorily for 6-8 months but the machine again started giving problem and the same could not be rectified time & again. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.
2. Notices were issued to the Ops,but OP No.1 did not put appearance despite registered notice. As such, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.07.2014 whereas Ops No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel but instead of filing written statement, he opt to tender a statement on 01.09.2014 that “Engineers of the Ops No.2 & 3 have rectified the defect in the machine of the complainant on 14.08.2014 and now the washing machine of the complainant is working properly and if within one month, any defect again occurs in the machine, then they will rectify the same and if any part is required to be replaced, then the same shall also be replaced by the Ops No.2 &3.”
3. That in rebuttal, complainant also tendered a statement that from the date of purchase, washing machine in question got defects about 50 times and now they have no any reliability of the machine as it may be defective again at any time and thus the same may either be got replaced or its cost may be ordered to be refunded.
4. Thereafter, on 01.09.2014, present case was adjourned to 14.10.2014 for consideration on the aforesaid statements so tendered by both the parties as well as for tendering evidence , if any, by both the parties. But on the next date of hearing, complainant submitted written undertaking vide Annexure C-2 that washing machine in question has stopped working on 15.09.2014 and is lying defective since then. Besides it, he tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents Annexures C-1 to C-6 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel for Ops No. 2 & 3 did not tender any affidavit of Ops to rebut the contention of complainant rather tendered documents only as Annexures R2/1 to R2/4 in their evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OPs No. 2 & 3 and gone through the case file very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that the washing machine so purchased by him on 19.03.2010 occurred problem of vibration and abnormal noise from the very beginning and later on some more problems like plastic tub, shocker, suspension, spring, control panel, door rubber included weight etc. occurred within one year but the same were not rectified by the Ops satisfactorily despite making various complaints as mentioned in Annexure C-6 and even by lifting the washing machine by Op’s representative at their service center at Chandigarh.
On the other hand, the counsel for Ops No.2 & 3 tendered a statement before the Forum that after filing of complaint their Engineers have rectified the defects from the washing machine of complainant and now the same is working properly and they are also ready to rectify the defect, if any occurs within one month as well as they will also replace any part thereof, if so required. Contrary to this statement, the complainant has also got his statement recorded that from the date of purchase of the machine, it has been defective about 50 times but they have no reliability of it as it can be defective at any time and prayed for issuing a direction to Ops for replacing of the machine or in the alternative, refund of the cost of same.
After pursuing the above discussed facts and the complaints made by the complainant as mentioned in Annexure C-6 to the Ops on various dates, we have come to the conclusion that the washing machine in question is creating problem from the very beginning and the Ops failed to provide proper services to the complainant during the warranty period of 4 years as necessary to be provided by Ops as per document Annexure R-2/1 tendered by them in their evidence. Further, the version of the complainant also fortifies from the fact that the washing machine in question, at the instance of Engineer of Ops was taken to their service centre at Chandigarh on 09.05.2011 and was returned to him on 02.06.2011 after repairs and even then, the defects again occurred in it during the years of 2012,2013 & 2014 as clear from the complaints made to Ops on various dates as mentioned in documents Annexure C-6. Thus the machine was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified even after efforts made by the Ops. Moreover, the Ops have not submitted any affidavit of Engineer or Mechanic of Ops wherefrom it is proved that the washing machine in question is not having any inherent defect or the same was not being used in accordance with manufacturers instructions or operating manual etc. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Accordingly, the complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the receipt of copy of order:-
To replace the washing machine with new one of the same Model and if the same Model/Make is not available then to refund the cost of the washing machine i.e. Rs.18,300/- alongwith simple interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint i.e. 19.03.2014 to till its realization.
Also to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation costs and for mental harassment etc.
Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract further simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court.05.03.2015
