BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 157 of 2014.
Date of Instt: 4.6.2014.
Date of Order: 26.3.2015.
Sumer Misri son of Shri Nand Ram, resident of village & Post Office, Kitlana, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Muskan Electronics and Trunk House, in front of ice factory, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani, through its Prop.
- Kelvinator Electrical Company, Kel. India Pvt. Ltd. SCO-137, Sector-13, 2nd Floor Urban Estate, Karnal.
…...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: Shri B.D.Yadav, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Shri R.N.Rohilla, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Raj Kumar, Adv. for respondent No.2 with Shri Dharamvir Sharma, in person.
Shri Mukesh Kumar, OP No.1 in person.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased a Washing Machine from respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.8000/- vide bill No.1011 dated 9.12.2013 which was manufactured by respondent No.2 with a warranty of two years. It is further alleged the washing machine sold by respondent No.2 was having manufacturing defect and the clothes were being torn during process of washing. The complainant further alleged that the intimation in this regard was given to respondent No.1 but defect could not be found. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondents several times and requested to replace the defective washing machine with new one but they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he had to file the present complaint
2. Respondent No.1 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant purchased the washing machine after fully satisfying himself. It is submitted that answering respondent is a shop keeper and sold the electronics items on fix profit basis and he is not the manufacturer. It is further submitted that the Machine sent to the service centre by the complainant which was duly repaired. It is further submitted that the complainant used the washing machine 4-5 months smoothly and there was no complaint and if there was any manufacturing defect he could have informed at the initial stage. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Respondent No.2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that complainant had purchased the washing machine from respondent No.1 on 9.12.2013 and the machine was of good quality and working properly. It is submitted that on the complaint of complainant the machine was checked and found that the same has become defective due to improper use and carelessness and the same was repaired. It is further submitted that the answering respondent is still ready to repair the machine but he is not interested for the same. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits in their evidence to prove their respective versions along with the documents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record Annexure C1 Photo stat copy of cash memo/bill No.1011 dated 9.12.2013 vide which it has been clearly established that the complainant had purchased a Washing Machine for a sum of Rs.8000/. The version of complainant is supported by on affidavit. The respondents in their written statement admitted that the washing machine was used by the complainant 4-5 months smoothly and there was no complaint in the machine if there was any manufacturing defect the machine cannot be used for such a long time of 4-5 months. On the other thing the respondents also admitted in their written statement that on the complaint of complainant the machine was checked and found that the same has become defective due to improper use and carelessness by the complainant. The factum of defect has been admitted by the respondents. It is alleged in the complaint that the clothes were torn during the process of washing and the version has been supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the complainant is also entitled for compensation on this account. Moreover, the respondents have also failed to produce any expert/technical opinion that the machine was not having any manufacturing defect. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the respondent No.2 who is manufacturer of the machine is directed: -
1- To replace the washing machine with new one of the same model and same price along with fresh warranty or to refund the cost of the Machine along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its final realization.
- To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of humiliation mental agony, physical harassment.
3- To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copies supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 26.3.2015. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Balraj Singh) (Anita Sheoran)
Member Member
