Haryana

StateCommission

A/343/2016

RP STONE CLINIC PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW GANPATI ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

TEJINDER PAL SINGH

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 343 & 347 of 2016

Date of Institution: 20.04.2016 & 21.04.2016

Date of Decision: 18.08.2016

Appeal No.343 of 2016

 

R.P. Stone Clinic Private Limited, SCF 30 & 31, Sector 11, HUDA, Phase-1, Panipat through its Director Dr. Pawan Kumar Gupta.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s New Ganpati Electronics, near Honda Activa Showroom, G.T. Road, Panipat through its partner.

2.      IFB Industries Limited, 14 Taratolla Road, Kolkata (W.B.)-700088, through its Managing Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

Appeal No.347 of 2016

 

IFB Industries Limited, through its Regional Accountant, Plot No.640 A, Industrial Area, Phase IX, Mohali (S.A.S. Nagar) in complaint mentioned as IFB, Industries Limited 14, Taratolla Road, Kolkatta 700088 (W.B.) through its Managing Director.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      R.P. Stone Clinic Private Limited, SCF 30 & 31, Sector 11, HUDA, Phase-1, Panipat through its Director Dr. Pawan Kumar Gupta.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s New Ganpati Electronics, near Honda Activa Showroom, G.T. Road, Panipat through its partner.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:              Shri Ankush Chowdhary, Advocate for R.P. Stone Clinic Private Limited-Complainant.

Shri P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for New Ganpati Electronics & IFB Industries Limited-Opposite Parties.

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned appeals bearing No.343 & 347 of 2016 filed by R.P. Stone Clinic Private Limited -complainant and IFB Industries Limited-Opposite Party No.2, respectively having arisen out of common order dated March 2^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.49 of 2013. 

2.               In its appeal, the complainant seeks direction to the opposite parties either to replace the defective washing machine and dryer or refund the price of the same, alongwith interest @ 12%  and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  On the other hand, the opposite party No.2 has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.   

3.                The complainant purchased a washing machine (IFB Senator-VX) and Dryer for Rs.30,000/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively  after discount, vide receipts Exhibit C-1 and C-2, respectively from New Ganpati Electronics-Opposite Party No.1, the authorised dealer of IFB Industries Limited-Opposite Party No.2 (Manufacturer).  The machine and dryer developed defects. The complainant approached the opposite parties to rectify the defects or to replace the machine/dryer but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.                The opposite party No.1 in its written version stated that as per terms and conditions, the machine and dryer of the complainant were not covered under warranty because he had used the same for commercial purposes. The opposite party No.1 was not authorised to attend any complaint with respect to the defects in the product. The authorised service centre of the company was situated at Idgah Road, Model Town, near Aggarwal Homeopathic, Panipat. The complainant did not make complaint to the service centre or on the toll free telephone numbers of the company.

5.                The opposite party No.2 in its written version pleaded that since the products were purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose, so no warranty was extended. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted complaint and directed the opposite parties to repair the washing machine and dryer free of costs and to pay Rs.3300/- towards cost of litigation.  

7.                Learned counsel for IFB Industries Limited has argued that the complainant never complained alleging any defect in the products, therefore, the question of rectifying the defect does not arise and thus the complaint was not maintainable.

8.                On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the Certificate (Annexure C-8) issued by Five Star Electronics to prove that there was defect in the products supplied by the opposite parties.

9.                The submission made on behalf of the opposite parties is not tenable. Certificate (Exhibit C-8) issued by Five Star Electronics shows that the machine and dryer of the complainant were not in working condition and having suffered from manufacturing defect. On the other hand, the opposite parties have not led any evidence in support of their contention that there was no defect in the machine/dryer. Even otherwise, the complaint being lodged with the opposite parties, it was expected from them to have at least inspected the machine and given their report which they failed. In view of this, the appeal filed by IFB Industries Limited is devoid of merits.

10.              Coming now to the plea raised on behalf of the complainant for replacement of the products or to refund the price thereof alongwith interest and compensation is not tenable. The opposite parties have been directed to repair the machine and dryer free of costs and to pay compensation of Rs.3300/-. The warranty is only to repair and not replacement. In the considered opinion of this Commission, the complainant has already been granted adequate relief and no case for interference is made out.

11.              In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed.

12.              The statutory amount of Rs.1700/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.347 of 2016 be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 18.08.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL