Haryana

StateCommission

A/1283/2016

IFB INDUSTRIES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.S.SAINI - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.KUKREJA

15 Dec 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1283 of 2016

Date of Institution:        28.12.2016

Date of Decision :        15.12.2017

 

1.      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, Plot No.Ind-05, Sector 01, East Calcutta Township, Calcutta-700078 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

 

2.      IFB Industries Limited through its Regional Accountant, Plot No.640 A, Industrial Area, Phase IX, Mohali, (S.A.S. Nagar) in complaint wrongly mentioned as IFB Industries Limited, 184, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

3.      IFB Industries Limited through its Regional Accountant, Plot No.640 A, Industrial Area, Phase IX, Mohali, (S.A.S. Nagar) in complaint wrongly mentioned as IFB Industries Limited, Himalaya Cold Store, Near Tau Devi Lal Chowk, Karnal through its Branch Service Incharge.

4.      IFB Industries Limited through its Regional Accountant, Plot No.640 A, Industrial Area, Phase IX, Mohali, (S.A.S. Nagar) in complaint wrongly mentioned as IFB Industries Limited, Mukesh F.B. Consumer Care Centre, Anna Hazare Market, near Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak through its Franchisor.

 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.2 to 5

Versus

1.      P.S. Saini s/o Shri Gulzari Lal Saini, Resident of House No.995, Sector-3, Rohtak.

Respondent-complainant

2.      M/s Bhatia Electronics Lab, authorized dealer IFB etc. 7 Palika Bazar, Rohtak through its Proprietor.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.            

 

Argued by:          Shri P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Vijay Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                  

 

                                                   O R D E R

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                   This appeal has been preferred against the order dated November 23^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Complainant-P.S. Saini (respondent No.1 herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he purchased a washing machine bearing chassis No.16278, IFB Elena Model from IFB Industries Limited, Rohtak - Opposite Party No.2 on January 05^th, 2004 for a consideration of Rs.14,300/-, vide invoice dated January 05^th, 2004 (Exhibit PW1/A-1) having two years manufacture warranty period. Thereafter also, the opposite party No.2 executed Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with the complainant regarding the above mentioned washing machine for a period of two years w.e.f. August 25^th, 2008 on payment of Rs.3371/-. As per version of the complainant, after a period of one year, certain defects occurred in the washing machine which caused problems in the working of the washing machine. These defects were removed by the opposite party No.2 in the beginning from time to time. Thereafter, also the defects occurred in the washing machine and as and when the complainant used to give information to the opposite party No.2 in this regard, the opposite party used to send untrained persons to remove defects of the machine. These untrained persons badly affected the smooth working of the machine.

3.                Again in the month of August, 2008, some problem developed in the washing machine. After the complainant lodged a complaint with the concerned agency, the complainant was advised to execute Annual Maintenance Contract so that problem of the complainant may be over. Annual Maintenance Contract was executed on payment of Rs.3372/- on August 25^th, 2008. In the month of September, 2008, a complaint was lodged with the opposite parties regarding some defects in the wire or short circuit. The wire concerned was changed but the changed wire was also defective. The motor of the washing machine went out of order. Thereafter, again complaint was lodged with the opposite parties but no response was received. Thereafter also, the complainant time and again made complaint to the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not take care. The washing machine has been damaged up to the extent that its repair also does not seems to be possible. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the washing machine with a new IFB Elena washing machine with full warranty as usual and to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.

4.                The opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated May 22^nd, 2009 as none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.1 before the learned District Forum despite service.

5.                The Opposite Parties No.2 to 5 have taken plea in their written version that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is admitted that the complainant on January 05^th, 2014 purchased an IFB Alena Model washing machine from the opposite party No.2 for a consideration of Rs.14,300/-. The complainant has not given particulars regarding terms of the warranty in his complaint. Few minor defects occurred in the washing machine from time to time which were removed by the opposite party No.2. The opposite parties No.2 to 5 have engaged trained professional and experienced technicians. It is denied that un-trained persons were sent to remove defects of the washing machine. It is denied that there was any mishandling regarding repair work of the washing machine on the part of the opposite parties. There is no defect in the washing machine and the version of the complainant in his complaint is concocted one.

6.                The annual maintenance contract was provided to the complainant on his request mentioning conditions in the AMC. As per terms of AMC in case purchaser feels any problem in the washing machine, the opposite parties are required to depute a technician to do needful if required. After receiving a complaint, Anoop Singh a technician of the opposite parties No.2 and 5 immediately and promptly attended the complaint of the complainant on February 13^th, 2009. The complaint of the complainant was regarding leakage of the water. The opposite parties No.2 to 5 replaced tub and satisfied the complainant. Job card was signed by Smt. Shakuntla on February 13^th, 2009 on behalf of the complainant. Washing machine of the complainant is giving satisfactory performance even after expiry of the warranty period also.  As the tub of the washing machine was replaced on February 13^th, 2009, there was no necessity to replace the tub again on April 16^th, 2009. The complainant has wrongly mentioned regarding visit of Amit on the above mentioned dates. The opposite parties have taken all care and the complainant is leveling false allegations. It is denied that the complainant had to face any harassment or mental agony due to any fault of the opposite parties.

7.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated November 23^rd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.13,000/- in lump sum on account of total loss suffered by the complainant along with an amount of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decision of the complaint.

8.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated November 23^rd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite parties No.2 to 5 have filed the present appeal bearing No.1283 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

10.              It is admitted fact that on January 05^th, 2004 the complainant purchased an IFB Elena model washing machine having chassis No.16278, on payment of Rs.14,300/-, vide invoice dated January 05^th, 2004 (Exhibit PW1/A-1) from the IFB Industries Limited, Rohtak – Opposite Party No.2. The usual warranty period was also provided. It is also admitted fact that vide invoice Exhibit PW1/B dated August 25^th, 2008 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3371/- to the opposite party No.1 for providing annual maintenance contract. In this way, by providing annual maintenance contract, the complainant got extended warranty from August 25^th, 2008 to August 24^th, 2010 for a period of two years.

11.              Version of the complainant is that during warranty period time and again defects developed in the washing machine and the complainant time and again had to send complaints to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 sent few untrained persons to remove defects of the washing machine but those untrained persons created more problems regarding smooth functioning of the washing machine. The washing machine developed some problem relating to motor, vibration and noise problem etc. but the complainant did not receive profitable response as and when he submitted complaints to the opposite party No.2 regarding defects in the washing machine.  The defects pointed out in the working of the washing machine are mentioned in detail in the documents Exhibit PW1/D and Exhibit PW1/Y.  Exhibit PW1/B is the receipt regarding payment of an amount of Rs.3371/- and Exhibit PW1/B is the copy of annual maintenance contract regarding the period from August 25^th, 2008 up to August 24^th, 2010 on payment of Rs.3371/-. Documents, letters of correspondence and complaints Exhibit PW1/C to Exhibit PW1/Y are enough to make observations that smooth and proper functioning of the washing machine became impossible. The washing machine time and again created problems. The complainant time and again had to send complaints to the opposite parties No.1 to 5. The defects in the washing machine became a cause of constant headache for the complainant and his family members.

12.              After warranty period also, the complainant got the warranty period extended for a period of two years so that it may be possible for the complainant to use the same washing machine without un-necessary problems but it could not be possible. It appears that the defects occurred in the washing machine time and again due to manufacturing defects. During the course of arguments, the complainant argued that if defect occurs in the machine time and again, it can be considered that it is happening due to some manufacturing defect in the machine. In support of his this contention, learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Krishanpal Singh versus Tata Motors Limited and others, 2014(3) CLT 178 wherein it was held that if the vehicle is repeatedly taken to service station for repairs, the manufacturing defect must be assumed. In such a situation, onus of proof shifts upon the opposite parties. It was also held that whenever there is a complaint of manufacturing defect, it should be the burdened duty of the opposite parties to appoint its own expert who is always available and to call expert to prove that the car vehicle does not suffer from manufacturing defect. Cited case law fully supports the version of the complainant. Apart from it, another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission on this point of controversy M/s Godrej Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd. & others vs. Raj Kumar Maini and others, 2015(4) CLT 328 also supports the version of the complainant up to some extent.

13.              As per discussion above in detailed, we feel no hesitation in holding that the complainant had to face un-necessary problems in using in washing machine due to some manufacturing defect. Learned District Forum wisely assessed the compensation amount to be paid to the complainant as Rs.13,000/- after deducting 25% from the total amount spent by the complainant for purchasing machine and for making payment for extended warranty period. We find no illegality and invalidity in the impugned order dated November 23^rd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum.  Hence, the findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

14.              The statutory amount of Rs.8,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 15.12.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL