DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Dr.Paramjit Singh, #1113/2^nd Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh – 160022 (U.T.)

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1]        Regional Manager Services, IFB Industries Ltd., Home Appliances Division, Regd. Office SCO 146-147, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022

2]        Managing Authority (Service Station), S.S.Automation – Mr.kakkar, SCO 303, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh 160038 (U.T.).

3]        Mr.Kowinderjit Singh, Regd. Office – SCO 146-147, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022

4]        Mr.Jaswinder Singh, SCO 303, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh – 160038 (U.T.)

Previous Address: IFB Industries, 154, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:            Dr. (Mrs.) Raminder Kaur wife/Auth. Agent of the complainant.

Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Adv. For OP-1.

OPs NO.2,3 & 4 exparte.

 PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short) on the ground that the CC has purchased an IFB Dish Washer (DW Neptune) 006-100447-04 on 13.7.2006 under Invoice NO.CHD-NO-SUR/175/0607, amounting to Rs.23,290/-. 

                The said machine was installed on 20.7.2006 and the same became functionally on 27.7.2006.  CC thereafter opted for an extended warranty by paying an amount of Rs.2525/- through cheque NO.297676, dated 17.9.2006.  The receipt of the same No.4281, dated 17.9.2006 was given to the CC.  The extended period of warranty was to start from 20.7.2008 upto 19.7.2010.  Simultaneously, an acqua-ECO-control system was also purchased to cut down salt expenses and softening of water. 

                The CC had also purchased one IFB Digital Washing Machine (Sr.No.WT-DIG-B09731) on 20.2.2005 for Rs.24,000/-. An extended warranty for this washing machine was also subscribed and an amount of Rs.1653/- was paid for the period starting 28.2.2007 upto 27.2.2009. 

                At the end of the extended warranty period of this IFB Digital Washing Machine, CC subscribed for the Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMC) on27.02.2009 and 28.2.2010 by paying an amount of Rs2919-/ and Rs.2383/- vide Receipt NO. 4871& 4491 respectively.  The said AMC was effective till 27.2.2011. 

                The CC had also subscribed for AMC for the Neptune Dish Washer for the period 13.8.2010 to 12.8.2011 by paying an amount of Rs.2285/- on 13.8.2010 vide ICR No.2343. 

                Though the CC had purchased these two appliances, as he had trusted the name of the company and believed the he would be served in the best manner.  The CC has alleged that during the period of extended warranty as well as during the period of AMC, the Representatives of the Company were not prompt in their response towards the requests of the CC as and when there was a breakdown with the Dish Washer as well as the Digital Washing Machine.

                The CC is harassed by the repeated breakdown of both the machines as he had to lodge numerous complaints, details of which are mentioned in Para-4 of Page-7 of the Complaint wherein as many as 14 requests between the dates 19.2.2010 to 23.9.2010 are mentioned.  It is also alleged that as more than 300 calls were made from the Mobile No.9815553749 to the complaint centre, service station, Sr. Technician and Sr.Engineers, Franchisee Holder and Area Head Services.

                The CC has also mentioned that even while the service peoples, who visited for the repair of the machine, took a lot of time even in repairing the same and at times did not turn up for days while fetching the required spare parts for the completion of repairs and the machines remained without use. 

                CC has alleged that as he has lost faith in the goods purchased as well as the services as promised by the OPs, pray for the refund of amount of rupees paid for the purchase of the two machines, their extended warranties as well as AMCs.  CC has also claimed compensation for hiring of servant amounting to Rs.18,000/- plus Rs.3500/- for making numerous calls. 

                CC has also prayed for an consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment mental agony and inconvenience along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.   

2]             On notice, OP-1 filed its detailed version. 

                OPs No.2, 3 & 4 though properly served failed to appear in person or through any authorized agent, hence were proceed against exparte vide order dated 14.1.2011. 

                Though it is revealed from the contents of the file as well as the title of the reply, that though OP-2 and OP-3 were proceeded exparte, but the reply on record clearly mentions to be filed on behalf of OP-1 (I.F.B. Industries) and OP-3 (Konwinderjit Singh).

                In the reply OPs have contested the claim of the CC by submitting that the CC had taken the delivery of the appliances in question after pre-delivery inspection and to his entire satisfaction.  The OP-1 had complied with the warranties, assurances and specifications as provided by the manufacturer regarding the quality and performance of the appliances. 

                OPs have also contested that the prayer for refund of price, interest thereupon and compensation extra is barred as the same is beyond warranty terms.  It is also contested that the present complaint cannot go beyond the agreed terms & conditions of the parties and the Forum would look into these facts only.  The OPs have also claimed that the CC has been utilizing the machines in question regularly since the date of purchase and as such, the CC has not suffered any mental agony or harassment as claimed in her present complaint.  

                 OPs have also contested the demand of the CC for the refund of the price of the machines on the ground that as the defects mentioned could only be determined by a proper analysis and test of the good and only after the same is tested in an appropriate laboratory a conclusion can be drawn.  As the allegations of the CC are without force in the absence of an expert report, hence deserves to be dismissed. 

                OPs have also pointed out that the present compliant is bad in the light of limitation period as the machines in question were purchased in the year 2006 and the same deserves dismissal as per provisions of Section 24-A of C.P.Act.

                OPs have also taken objection to the fact that as the two machines were purchased on two different occasions, and the extended warranties as well as the AMCs were also affected on different dates, a common complaint with regard to different cause of actions is not tenable.      

                OPs have also pointed to the fact that the repeated renewal of AMCs by the CC proves that he was satisfied with the services rendered by the OPs and hence, the renewal of AMC.  The said Act of the CC itself falsifies the claim of the CC. 

3]             Parties led their respective evidences.

4]             Having gone through the entire complaint, version of OPs and the evidence of the parties, we are of the considered view that the CC is successful in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs on the following grounds:-

i)         In the present complaint, the main grievance of the CC, as evident from Para-4 of the Complaint (Page No.7), is that the OPs have failed to repair the said machines as and when the requirement arose and also the response of the OPs was not prompt.  Even when the service peoples, who visited the premises of the CC for attending the complaints, took a number of days to make the machines in functional order. 

ii)        It has also come to light that at times even the availability of required spare parts was not at hand and it took some time to source it from somewhere else, as mentioned in the last para at Page-3 of the complaint.

iii)       It is also noticed that the CC had complained about the conflicting views of different service persons about the existing problem and also gave different advises, which left the CC confused as what to do  and what not to. 

iv)      As per the details, on page-7 of the complaint, the CC has also mentioned the dates when such complaints were lodged with the OPs and subsequently their failure in responding to them. 

v)        The OPs have failed to bring on record any such document from where it could be ascertained that their working and their response to the complaints of the CC were upto the mark and prompt.  Though, OPs have raised a number of technical objections with regard to the lack of expert report in order to pin-point the fault with the machines, whereas they themselves have failed to submit on Oath whether the said machines were perfect and in good running conditions.

vi)      As the OPs have failed to rebut the claim of the CC by bringing any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record, we believe that the allegations of the CC hold ground. 

vii)     As the present complaint is heavily loaded against the OPs on the point of their failure in respecting the terms & conditions of Annual Maintenance Contract starting from 28.2.2009 to 27.2.2010 and 28.2.2010 to 27.2.2011 in the case of Digital Washing Machine and 13.8.2010 upto 12.8.2011 for Neptune Dish Washer.

viii)    We believe that it is the sole responsibility of the OPs to honour the promises made at the time of entering into Annual Maintenance Contract and helping their customers by maintaining their machines in perfect order and that too by giving prompt & effective service, and it is this responsibility the OPs have miserably failed in.

5]             In the light of above observations, we allow the complaint and direct OP-1 to refund the amount of money received by them against the last two A.M.C. charges of each machine, along with a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. 

                This order be complied with by OP-1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay an interest @18% p.a. on the total amount of compensation that stands against them after completion of 30 days..

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.09.2011

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER