Punjab

Sangrur

CC/260/2014

RADHA KRISHANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

OWNER M/S GOYAL RADIOS - Opp.Party(s)

BHUSHAN KUMAR GARG

04 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    260

                                                Instituted on:      06.05.2014

                                                Decided on:       04.12.2015

 

 

Radha Krishan Gupta aged 57 years son of Shri Milkhi Ram Gupta, resident of Ward No.10, Jakhal Road, Zora Basti, Patran, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Goyal Radios, Chotta Chowk, Sangrur through its owner.

2.             IFB Industries Limited, IND-5, Sector-1, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700 107 West Bengal, India through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For OP No.2              :               Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Shri Radha Krishan Gupta, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine model IFB ELITE SX 7 KG 1200 RP from OP number 1 on 4.9.2012 for an amount of Rs.29,600/- vide bill number 23482 under four years warranty.  The OP number 2 is the manufacturer of the washing machine in question.  From the very beginning, the washing machine in question started giving trouble.  It is further averred that in the month of February, 2014, the washing machine stopped to work on 5.2.2014 and the complainant made a complaint at the customer care centre of OP number 2, who gave complaint number 12351212, but no representative or mechanic of the OP came to check the washing machine in question.  Then again the complainant lodged the complaint with OP number 2 under complaint number 12464517, but no one visited to check the machine in question.  Thereafter email was sent to OP number 2 by Mr. Amit Gupta son of the complainant regarding non working of the washing machine in question.  It is further averred that in the month of March, 2014, a mechanic of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and inspected the washing machine and by replacing the motor of the washing machine promised that all the defects have been removed, but washing machine went out of order on the same day and stopped to work.  The complainant again lodged the complaint with the OPs, but no one visited to attend the complaint.  It is stated further that the washing machine in question suffers from manufacturing defects.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the washing machine with a new one or in the alternative to refund to the complainant the amount of washing machine i.e. Rs.29,600/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the appliance sold to the complainant is of high quality, that the relationship between the OP number 2 and OP number 1 is on principal to principal basis and that the complainant has filed the complaint alleging manufacturing defect in the appliance without having produced any expert opinion.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the machine in question from OP number 1. It is stated that the complaint of the complainant is false one and has concocted a false story therein.  However, it is admitted that the OP number 2 had received a telephonic complaint on 5.2.2014 for which ticket number 12351212 was allotted and the OP appointed technician to attend the complaint and during inspection any of the alleged defect was not found.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of email, Ex.C-4 copy of warranty and user manual and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit along with annexure R-2/1 to annexure R-2/2 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             Record shows that earlier this complaint was allowed by this Forum on 19.11.2014 and against that order, the OP number 2 went in appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and  the Hon’ble Commission vide its order dated 5.6.2015 set aside the order passed by this Forum and the case was remanded back to this Forum for deciding the same afresh by giving an opportunity to OP number 2 to produce evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the complainant and thereafter to decide the complaint on merits.  Accordingly,  this Forum gave opportunity to the OP number 2 to lead evidence, who led the evidence and closed thereafter.

 

6.             Further it is worth mentioning here that the learned counsel for the complainant on 4.9.2015 filed an application to appoint independent technical expert to ascertain the actual condition of the washing machine in question.  Accordingly after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP number 2, this Forum found it to be a fit case, where the washing machine in question is required to be got checked from an independent expert to know the actual position and appointed the Incharge, LG  Service Centre, Railway Chowk, Sangrur to inspect the machine in question and to submit the report thereof.  Accordingly, the LG Customer Care Centre, Sangrur submitted its report dated 19.11.2015 to this Forum, which has been placed on record.

 

7.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the bill dated 04.09.2012 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the washing machine in question for Rs.29,600/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the washing machine in question and availed the services of the OP number 1 and 2. It is also admitted fact of OP number 2 that the complainant approached him and complained about the defect in the washing machine in question.   The complainant has also produced the document Ex.C-3 which shows that the OP number 2 was in the knowledge about the defect in the machine of the complainant. The complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his contention that the washing machine is defective one and the defects arose within the guarantee period. Further Ex.C-4 is the copy of warranty card showing that the machine in question was under warranty.

 

8.             It is on record that the OPs had given a warranty of four years for the washing machine in question to the complainant, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4. It is also an admitted fact that in the month of March, 2014, a mechanic of the Ops visited the house of the complainant and inspected the washing machine, who replaced the motor of the machine and promised that it would work properly, but the washing machine in question again stopped to work on the same day and the complainant again lodged the complaint, but no one came from the side of the OPs to remove the defects in the washing machine.  Further it is worth mentioning here that Shri Mohinder Kumar Johar prop of  Anjali Electronics, LG Customer Care Centre, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur, who was appointed to inspect the machine in question inspected the machine and submitted his report dated 19.11.2015 which has been placed on record and a bare perusal of the report shows that in para number 3 it has been mentioned that “that on 17.11.2015, I inspected the washing machine IFB Elite SX 7 KG 1200 RP in question with my all instruments in the presence of persons present and found that the washing machine in question failed to start and was not working. PCB of the washing machine in question was not working also.  I found that there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine in question which cannot be rectified. Due to this reason the washing machine is not working….”.  From the expert report, it is ample clear that the machine in question is suffering from the manufacturing defect therein.   The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that if the expert has found that there is manufacturing defect in the machine, then the complainant is entitled to get refund of the cost of the washing machine in question from the OPs.  To support his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited C.N. Anantharam versus Fiat India Limited and others 2011(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 519, wherein it has been held that if inherent manufacturing defect is found in the vehicle by such expert, petitioner is entitled to get refund of the whole amount spent with interest.  In the present case, similar is the position and this judgment is fully applicable in the present case.

               

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.29,600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 06.05.2014 till its realisation in full, subject to returning of the disputed machine in question by the complainant to OP number 2.  Further the OP number 2  shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 4, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member