District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 425/2020.
Date of Institution: 09.11.2020.
Date of Order: 31.10.2022.
Manish Gambhir son of Shri Chander Kumar Gambhir, resident of Gali NO.3, Block-B, SGM Nagar, Faridabad. Mobile No. 9599746706.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. R.K. Electronics, R-267, Adarsh Colony, NIT, Faridabad through its authorized person.
2. Texla Vision, Global Trading Company, 241A, Street No.4, Prakash Nagar, Ludhiana, Pun jab – 141013.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Naveen Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sunil Kumar, counsel for opposite party NO.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte vide order dated 20.04.2021.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Texlavision Washing Machine Model NO. TXYWN900 vide invoice No. 531 dated 13.12.2018 amounting to Rs.11,500/-. There was a leakage in the machine. On the next day i.e. 14.12.2018 his client lodged a complaint to the opposite party No.1. On 15.12.2018 one man from the shop of opposite party No.1 visited at the house of the complainant and pasted the leakage with some liquid. On 30.01.2020 again there was a leakage in the washing machine. The complainant made a complaint to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 told that to complaint the matter to the customer care of opposite party No.2. On the same day the complainant telephonically called the customer care on 9.52 a.m. and 10.43 a.m. and lodged the complaint vide complaint No. 2261. On 2.2.2020 at about 10.33 a.m. the complainant again made a complaint to the customer care. On 03.02.2020 the engineer of the company visited at the house of the complainant at about 2.00p.m. The engineer opened the machine and pasted the seal on the leakage area and told that now the leakage was closed. But the leakage was not closed. The complainant obtained the video regarding leakage in front of the engineer. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to repair the machine and to refund the washing machine with new one. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to deliver the machine at his shop. On the assurance of opposite party No.1 on 4.2.2020 the complainant delivered the said washing machine on the shop of opposite party No.1. The complainant made so telephonic call to the customer care center. On 18.02.2020 the representative of customer care asked the complainant that the approval of changing the machine came and they would deliver the new washing machine at the house of the complainant within 2-4 days. The complainant requested and visited at the opposite party No.1 so many times and requested him to replace the machine but the opposite party No.1 linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) replace the washing machine with new one or to pay Rs.11,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint of the complainant was not maintainable in the present form as the services of warranty etc. w s on the part of company Texla Vision i.e opposite party No.2. The complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party as the answering opposite party was the only dealer and the had only right to sale the products of Texla Vision. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Registered notice was sent to opposite party No.2 on 17.03.2021 received back with the report of refusal. Case called several times since morning but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.04.2021.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– R.K. Electronics & Ors. with the prayer to: a) replace the washing machine with new one or to pay Rs.11,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Manish Gambhir, Ex.C-1 – Tax Invoice.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party
Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Rajeev Kumar Sharma Prop. Of M/s. R.K. Electronics, RP267, Adarsh Colonby, NIT, Faridabad.
7. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party No.2 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party No.2 has rendered deficient services to the complainant..
Counsel for the opposite party No.1 argued that Opposite party No.1 is the only dealer and he has only right to sale the products of Texla Vision.
8. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Texlavision Washing Machine Model NO. TXYWN900 vide invoice No. 531 dated 13.12.2018 amounting to Rs.11,500/-.vide Ex.C-1. From the date of its purchase, the above said washing machine had gone out of order and was not in proper working condition. Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties personally as well as on 14.12.2018, 15.12.2018, 30.1.2020 and 02.02.2020 ipso facto go to prove that the washing machine in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite party No. 2 As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2. Hence complaint is allowed.
9. Opposite party No.2 is directed to replace the washing machine in question with a new one, subject to return the old washing machine, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 31.10..2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
