Haryana

Ambala

CC/311/2020

Shubham Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pinky Radios - Opp.Party(s)

Shuksham Aggarwal

02 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	311 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	07.12.2020
Date of decision	:	02.02.2023

 

Shubham Aggarwal aged 35 Years son of Dr. Viveka Nand Aggarwal, Resident of H.No.956, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Pinky Radios Chandigarh, Shed No.26/5, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh, 0171-5028880,5002880,4608880. (Seller)
2. Bosch India Household Appliances, Plot Arena House, Second Floor, Main Building, 103, Road No.12, MIDC, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400093. (Manufacturer)
3. Ultimate Solutions, Authorized Service Centre of Bosch India Home Appliances Address: The Mall, 100 Mall Road, First Floor, Near NCC Group Head Quarter, Ambala Cantt.

 ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Suksham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the Complainant.

                   OPs No.1 and 3 already ex parte.

                             Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.                

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                 Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund to the complainant Rs.34500/- charged from him for the defective product alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the same till realization.
2. To refund Rs.10,000/-, as incurred by the complainant on unnecessary purchase of salt which was ultimately of no use;
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
4. To pay Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that  the complainant purchased one Bosch Dishwasher having model number SMS66GI011, Silver Colour for Rs.34,500/- and a Bosch washing machine model number WAT2846SIN, Silver Colour for Rs.36,000/- from OP No.1 on 26.10.2019, vide  Invoice No. PR/0852 Annexure C-1. The said machines were installed at the above mentioned address of the complainant by the engineers of OPs on 28.10.2020. The said engineers also gave demonstration of the machines during which they had told that the machines are of world class quality and at any time, if it is found to be not working properly, the Company provides immediate assistance and closes the complaint upto 100% satisfaction note of the customer. The dishwasher machine consists of a salt chamber, a rinse aid and a detergent chamber and as told by the Company's representative, all the three chambers are to be filled with respective products after 20-25 days if the machine is used on daily basis for washing utensils. It was further told that the utensils once placed in the machine for washing, are cleaned, washed and dried by the automated process of machine, which requires no human labour. User manual and washing instructions Annexure C-2 were provided by OPs. Right from the date of purchase, the dishwasher machine was not functioning properly. Every time the utensils were placed in machine for washing, there was detergent left over on the utensils. The complainant, after about a week of purchase of the dishwasher machine contacted the OP No. 1 for the problem in the Dishwasher machine but it asked him to contact OPs No.2 and 3 for after sales services, on the ground that the part of OP No.1 is limited only till the sale of product. The complainant then contacted the OP No.3 on its customer care number 18002661880 and lodged his complaint regarding problem of detergent left over in the machine. The engineers of the Company alongwith Mr. Balkar visited the house of complainant upon said complaint and conducted inspection of the machine. Upon inspection, they admitted that there is some fault in the product due to which it is not functioning properly and all the utensils washed in the machine are to be washed manually and there is soap left on the utensils. The engineers of company assured the complainant and his family to refer the issue to their seniors and asked the complainant to wait till the senior engineers of the Company visit the premises of complainant to resolve the grievance. The complainant kept waiting but none of the engineers visited for resolving the major issue in the machine. However, the local engineers of the company advised the complainant and his family to keep using the machine, as the machine has to be kept in the working condition only. Thereafter, the complainant discovered another major problem in the machine. The salt in the salt chamber of machine also got finished with 2-3 washes and the same had to be re-filled. The same was also shocking as the company had claimed that the salt lasts for 20-25 washes. The dishwasher machine had thus become more expensive and even then the utensils had to be washed manually. The complainant sent email dated 11.03.2020 to the OPs as there was no response from the customer care number for his Complaint. The OPs sent reply dated 12.03.2020 to the complainant and assured to assist him soon by sending the experts. The senior engineers of company then visited the house and conducted detailed inspection of the product. Upon inspection, they told that the machine has got a manufacturing defect and the same is not a normal problem. The engineers too made a video of the soap leftovers in the utensils washed in the machine and assured to send the same to the head office of the company and to provide replacement of the product at the earliest. The Complainant also made a video in which it can be seen that there is soap after utensils taken out of the dish washer. Thereafter, due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, lockdown was imposed in the Country and the house maid stopped visiting for work. The entire household was to be done by self and at this time, the dishwasher machine was of great use, but the defective machine could not be of any help and OPs No.2 and 3 were not paying any heed to resolve the problem in the machine. The complainant kept calling the customer service of the OPs who used to say that they would send the engineers of the company soon to provide pickup of the defective product just as the situation normalizes to some extent as they are short of staff due to pandemic. The machine was lying idle and the entire expense incurred on the same was wasted due to the defective product. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.1 and 3, before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.02.2021.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that   the alleged complaint relates to defect in goods which can only be determined with proper analysis or test of the goods as per the mandatory provision contained under The Consumer Protection Act. The alleged defect in the dishwasher machine mentioned by the complainant are based on his conjectures and surmises which can never take the shape of the evidence. OP No.2 is renowned manufacturer of various types of electronics home appliances/products or devices across the world and is widely acclaimed for its class and quality. The appliances and the device manufactured by OP No.2 pass through stringent quality checks and are made available in the market after being approved by the Bureau of Indian Standard (in short "BIS"). OP No.2 got call after 2 months of Installation of the dishwasher from the complainant, whereafter engineer visited his premises and had done adjustment of Rinse aid. As per the records, engineer Balkar visited and found some soap left on utensils so he did some settings and after that product is working in a good condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. The engineer advised the complainant to replace salt Chamber but complainant refused and was adamant for replacement of the entire machine. OP No.2 did not get any call during Lockdown. During that period, OP No.2 was providing services over phone also, during lockdown in 2020. The product was working ok but due to TDS there was a need to do amendment in setting of salt and rinse aid.. Subsequent to the e-mail of complainant, the engineer of the OP No.2 again visited the premises of the complainant and the product was working in a good condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. OP No.2 did not receive any call after 22.06.2020 and product was working ok. OP No.2 contacted the complainant to visit if there is any issue but he did not allow OP No.2. The complainant was regularly using dishwasher & accessory till date. There is no manufacturing defect as alleged. The complainant is required to substantiate the allegations with the technical report. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Harpreet Singh Saini, Authorized Representative of BSH Household Appliances Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure OP2/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.2 and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite the fact that the dishwasher is question suffered manufacturing defect within a short span of time and that too within the warranty period, the OPs were duty bound either to make it operational or to replace the same with a new one or refund the price thereof, yet, by not doing so, the OPs indulged into unfair trade practice and were deficient in providing service.
8.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any expert report that the dishwasher in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect and at the same time, as and when the complainant contacted the OPs, with regard to any problem of leaving of soap on the utensils after washing, salt chamber or any other minor problem, the same were rectified upto the satisfaction of the complainant.
9.           It is evident from tax invoice dated 26.10.2019, Annexure C-1 that the complainant had purchased the dishware alongwith washing machine from OP No.1 on making payment of Rs.70,500/-. It is also coming out from the record that thereafter the complainant faced problems in the dishwasher while operating i.e. soap was left after washing of utensils, salt chamber also gets empty after single wash etc. It is further evident from the bills Annexure C-6 colly. that the complainant had to purchase additional detergents like salt, rinse aid etc. for using the said dishwasher machine.  At the same time, the fact that the said problems were reported to the OPs have not been denied by OP No.2. Even emails Annexure C-5 colly, exchanged between the parties also proves that the complainant raised the said grievances. At the times of arguments also, learned counsel for the complainant has contended with vehemence that OPs No.1 and 3 were requested number of times to get remove the said defects in the dishwasher but they miserably failed to do so and that still the said dishware is not defect free. It is significant to mention here that, as stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to OPs No.1 and 3 seeking their version, yet, nobody appeared on their behalf, despite service,  as a result whereof, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.02.2021. This act of OPs No.1 and 3 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the OPs No.1 and 3 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant to the effect that still the said dishwasher is not defect free.
10.           It may be stated here that the dishwasher in question was purchased on 26.10.2019 now it is running January 2023, still the said dishwasher is not defect free. The OPs were under obligation to remove the defect in the said dishwasher during warranty period, which they failed to do so and on the other hand OPs No.1 (seller) and OP No.3 (service centre) are so ignorable that they did not even prefer to join the proceedings what to speak of putting their version. In the absence of OPs No.1 and 3, which were infact were in direct contract of the complainant, the airily pleas taken by OP No.2 is of not much importance.  Thus, the fact that the dishwasher in question was a new one and after few days of its purchase, the complainant started facing problems therein, referred to above, cannot be ignored. One can imagine the plight of the complainant, who had bought the dishwasher for his comfort, but on the other hand, it started giving problems, referred to above, from few days of its purchase.  Thus, on account of the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant was deprived of the use of dishwasher and would have definitely suffered lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the considered opinion that OPs are not only liable to refund the price of the dishwasher but are also liable to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, jointly and severally in the following manner:-
    1. To refund the price of the dishwasher to the complainant.
    2. To pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses

                         The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which these amounts shall carry interest @5% p.a. from the date of default, till realization. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

 Announced:- 02.02.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President