Delhi

East Delhi

CC/674/2016

CHANDER SEKHAR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ONIDA - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.674 of 2016

 

 

	CHANDER SEKHAR GUPTA R/O A-43, GIRI MARG, MANDAWALI, DELHI.	….Complainant
Versus
	BAWEJA AND SONS A-317, BUDHA MARG, BAWEJA MARKET, MANDAWALI , FAZALPUR, DELHI-110092.	……OP1
	MIRC ELECTRONICS CTQ ONIDA HOUSE, G-1, M.I.D.C. MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI – 400093.	……OP2

 

 

Date of Institution: 29.12.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 06.09.2022

Judgment Passed on: 08.09.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member) On Leave

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGEMENT

1. By this Order I shall dispose off the complaint of the Complainant with respect to deficiency in service in not repairing the Washing machine of the Complainant during warranty period.
2. Brief facts stated by the Complainant in the complaint are that he purchased a washing machine on 27.03.2011 for an amount of Rs.8,400/- and also got extended warranty from 25.02.2016 to 24.02.2018, but the washing machine of the Complainant went out of order and was not working properly where after he lodged the complaint on 26.05.2016, and the concerned technician of OP2 visited the Complainant’s house and assured that Motor of washing machine is required to be replaced and would be replaced within 4 days but the OP2 thereafter neither visited to replace the Motor nor gave any satisfactory reply, which compelled him to file the present complaint with a prayer to direct the OPs to repair the washing machine and also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 
3. Both the OPs were served and OP1 had been appearing initially but ultimately did not file written statement and also stopped appearing and vide order dated 02.03.2018, OP1 was proceeded Ex-parte. 
4. OP2 has filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed being false, frivolous and vexatious, Complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands, there is no cause of action in favour of the Complainant or against the OP2, the complaint of the Complainant had already been redressed and as such there is no surviving cause of action and above all it is submitted that one year warranty period was given at the time of purchase which ended on 26.03.2012 and the washing machine was free from all defects at that time.  The first complaint which the Complainant made was after running the washing machine in perfect condition for more than 5 years upon which the service engineer of the OP2 visited the house of the Complainant and he was directed to show the Extended Warranty Card (EWC) documents for the purpose of replacement of Motor but the Complainant failed to show such documents and he was told that as and when he will get his lost EWC documents, he may call the engineer of the OP2 and since he never provided such EWC documents, the Motor could not be replaced.  It is further submitted that to replace a part of the washing machine the EWC document is necessary to be shown to the Customer Care Unit of the answering respondent to avoid any malfunction in the administration of the OP, and only against that a replaced part is issued to avoid mis-management of the articles and in the present case no EWC document were provided by the complainant, and therefore, Complaint is not maintainable. 
5. On merit the contents of preliminary objection are reiterated.  Complainant thereafter filed the Rejoinder and inter alia stated that the Service Engineer of the OP had assured for replacement of the Motor but despite having made several calls the Washing machine was not repaired and even no reply was given by the OP.  Contents of the written statement on merit are denied and that of the Complainant are reiterated.  Complainant thereafter filed his evidence and OP2 has also filed his own evidence. 
6. Complainant has reiterated the facts of the complaint in his evidence and has not exhibited any document.  The OP has filed its evidence and he has exhibited two documents i.e. photocopy of the terms and conditions of EWC as Annexure-R1 and photocopy of Job Card dated 26.05.2016 as Annexure-R2. 
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.  The facts in nut shell are that Complainant got an extended warranty from the OP2 and when his washing machine became out of order, and the Motor of the washing machine was to be replaced the OP2 did not provide the services.  The main defence of the OP2 is that despite asking the EWC document, such document was not shown by the Complainant to the OP2 which contains terms and conditions and therefore the Motor of the washing machine was not replaced.  Be that as it may, the warranty Card for the extended period is not in dispute.  The Complainant may not have shown that warranty Card to the Service Engineer on the spot but definitely this warranty card has been placed on record by the OP himself on the Commission’s file.  The OP submits that showing of EWC Card is necessary to the store of the OP for getting a replaced article against particular warranty card and in absence of which the OP store was not able to replace or issue, particular part and as such the fault is on the part of the complainant.
8. The Commission is of the opinion that once EWC document is admitted and is in possession of OP2, it could have redressed the complaint of the Complainant on that basis.  It was not done by OP2 and in the opinion of the Commission it amounts to deficiency in service.  Simultaneously, it is observed by the Complainant that the washing machine had no problem for first 5 years and therefore ordering the replacement of the washing machine after 5-6 years, cannot be allowed, as for about 5 years the Complainant had been using the product to his full satisfaction without any complainat Further, whether the Complainant got the Motor replaced from outside or whether it remained defective has not been stated by the Complainant in the entire complaint.  If the Complainant would have spent some amount for the replacement of the Motor so as to make washing machine functional and it should run properly, then that amount would have been claimed by him but it is not so stated by the Complainant.    
9. Therefore, no pecuniary loss has been complained by the Complainant, he only seeks compensation with respect to not providing the proper service of the replacement of part of the washing machine. 

Therefore, in the fitness of circumstances of the case, the Commission hereby grants compensation of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the Complainant and against the OP2 without any interest.  However, if this payment is not paid within 90 days from the receipt of this Order then the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.   

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 08.09.2022

Delhi. On Leave (Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President