Haryana

StateCommission

A/315/2020

IFB CARE SERVICE CENTER AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH JAMALIA - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.KUKREJA

29 Jul 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.315 of 2020

                                                Date of Institution: 22.07.2020

                                                Date of Decision: 29.07.2020

 

 

IFB Care/Service (D.S. Service Centre) through its Proprietor M/s IFB Care (D.S. Service Centre) Dr. Amar Singh Sidhu Wali Gali, Arya Samaj Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

VERSUS

 

 

1.      Rakesh Jamaliya son of Shri Sant Lal, resident of House No.C-3, Gumbar Flat, III Floor, GTM Hisar Road, Sirsa.

…….Respondent No.1-Complainant

         

2.      M/s Service Plaza, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its authorized person/proprietor.

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

3.      IFB Service Center India, Ahmedabad Kreena Sales, Amp Services Address Trishila Complex, Ground Floor, Opposite Sakar School, New CG Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-382424.

Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

 

 

 

                                                        

Present:-    Shri Anshul Kukreja, counsel for the appellant.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          There was some delay in filing/re-filing of the appeal.  Sufficient grounds exist on the file to condone the                   delay.  Accordingly, delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.

2.      Opposite party No.2-IFB Care Service Center has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

3.      Vide impugned order, learned District Forum allowed the complaint instituted by complainant-Rakesh Jamaliya and the opposite parties directed to carry out necessary repairs in the washing machine of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing any part without any cost. Further, in case it was found that there was manufacturing defect in the machine and same was not repairable, then the opposite parties shall replace the same with new one of same make and model free of cost or in the alternative, to refund the purchase amount of the washing machine i.e. Rs.19,234/- to the complainant.  The opposite parties were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. 

4.      According to the complainant, he had purchased one fully automatic washing machine of IFB company, Model TLRCG 6.5 kg from opposite party No.1 vide Invoice No.SP/B 053 on 10.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.19,234/-.  Opposite party No.1 gave warranty card/book for one year complete and ten year warranty for motor.  The washing machine worked properly for a few months but on 25.6.2019 it stopped functioning completely.  It was further averred that initially the complainant approached opposite party No.1 with regard to the problem in the washing machine and on the asking of opposite party No.1, he also approached opposite party No.2.  The serviceman of opposite party No.2 visited the house of the complainant and checked the washing machine but the problem could not be solved and they obtained the copy of bill of washing machine and gave assurance that the matter would be reported to the higher authority but no solution could be found by the opposite parties despite his several requests.  Accordingly, the complainant while filing the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection, 1986 sought the following reliefs:-

(i)      the opposite parties be directed to either replace the washing machine in question with new one or to refund the amount/price of washing machine alongwith interest thereon @ 2% per month w.e.f its purchase, till the final realization; and,

(ii)      the opposite parties be directed to pay him an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing unnecessary harassment, humiliation, mental tension, agony, etc and an amount of Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.                    

5.      Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 put in appearance.  In its reply, opposite party No.1 admitted sale of washing machine to the complainant.  It was submitted that full warranty of two years and ten years’ warranty of motor was given by the manufacturing company. If there was some defect in the washing machine, then the customer had to make a complaint to the call centre of the company on toll free number for which the complainant had to show the bill and problem was to be removed by the company.  However, there was no responsibility of the dealer. All these facts were told to the complainant at the time of sale of washing machine.

6.      Opposite party No.2 filed written statement and while raising certain preliminary objections submitted that opposite No.1 was not an authorized dealer/ franchisee of IFB Industries Limited i.e. manufacturer of the appliances. The said manufacturer had not authorized opposite No.1 to sell the IFB products. It was further submitted that relationship between opposite No.2 with opposite parties No.1 and 3 was on principal to principal basis and opposite party No.2 could not be held liable for any independent act and omission, if any, committed by other OPs. It was further submitted that the complainant had not proved the alleged defects in the machine by way of an expert opinion. On 27.6.2019, a request call from complainant was received by the manufacturer on toll free number to attend to the appliance. Technician visited house of complainant and found that the washing machine bearing Serial No.062792 was neither purchased by the complainant from the authorized sales point nor warranty terms of the manufacturer were applicable. The complainant was not ready to pay the service charges, so the complaint of complainant was cancelled. The washing machine was not covered under the warranty and complainant could not compel the manufacturer to render free of cost services. It was further submitted that opposite party No.2 was only one of the authorized service franchisees of the manufacturer. 

7.      Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against ex parte. 

8.      Learned District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and passed necessary directions against the opposite parties. 

9.      Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No.2 has submitted that the onus to prove the deficiency, if any, was upon the complainant.  However, the learned District Consumer Forum did not appreciate that the complainant could not prove the defects alleged in the complaint.  The washing machine was working properly and was free from any manufacturing defect.  It was also submitted that the complainant did not prove by way of expert evidence, the allegations of manufacturing defect leveled by him.  Further the appellant was one of the service franchisees whereas opposite party No.1 was not an authorized person to sell the products of the manufacturer.  The washing machine was not sold by the manufacturer.  As such, the complaint against the appellant was not maintainable.  It is also submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and therefore the appellant was not liable to pay compensation.  Accordingly, it is submitted that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order be set aside.

10.    It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the washing machine of IFB company from opposite party No.1, which was manufactured by opposite party No.3. It is also proved on record that the washing machine worked well for a few months but thereafter, it stopped functioning.  The complainant had approached the opposite parties time and again requiring them to carry out necessary repairs in the washing machine and to make it defect free.  The appellant, which was impleaded as opposite party No.2 in the complaint was the service center of opposite party No.3-IFB Service Center. Despite the same, opposite party No.2-appellant made no attempt to carry out necessary repairs in the washing machine.  As regards sale of the washing machine, it is not denied that it was manufactured by opposite party No.1.  According to the manufacturer, M/s Service Plaza was not an authorized agent.  However, no material was brought on record by opposite party No.2 that opposite party No.1 was not the authorized person/agent.  As per the warranty card/book, there was complete warranty for one year and as regards motor, it was 10 years.  Within about eight months of the purchase of the machine by the complainant, it stopped functioning.  It is not denied by the opposite parties that the complainant had brought the defective machine to opposite party No.2-appellant but no attempt was made to rectify the problem for which it was suffered.  As such, the opposite parties were liable to carry out the machine and make it workable and if necessary repairs were not carried out, the opposite parties were rightly directed by the learned District Consumer Forum to carry out necessary repairs in the washing machine of the complainant and to make it defect free even replacing any part without any cost.  It has also been held that if it was found that there was a manufacturing defect in the machine, which was not repairable then the opposite parties shall replace the same with the new one of same make and model free of cost, or in the alternative, refund the purchase amount of the washing machine besides paying a sum of Rs.3,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

11.    In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.11,150/- deposited by the appellant-opposite party No.2 while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, subject to appeal/revision, if any.     

  

 

Announced 29.07.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

U.K