……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Ajit Singh AR for the complainant.
Shri KK Luthra, Advocate for the opposite party no.1 and 2.
Shri Amit Bondwal, Advocate for the opposite party no.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Whirlpool 7 kg fully automatic washing machine from the Reliance Digital Store, Rohtak, vide sales order no.4119417543 dated 24.03.2018. Firstly, complainant was delivered a damaged piece, and it was replaced after her complaint, and she was delivered another washing machine vide cash memo no.000070 dated 5.4.2018. The replaced machine was also not functioning properly since the first day. In this regard, complainant has raised complaint against it more than once. The opposite party no.1 sent a technician, who checked the machine and clicked some pictures of the stained clothes after proper washing in his presence. He told to the complainant to wait for positive response from the company. After waiting for a very long time, he raised a complaint vide complaint No.8022720952 against the machine with same problem on 18.1.20219 through customer care facility. It was assigned to the technician, who attended it on 19.1.20219 and washed clothes himself and then confirmed that this washing machine has some manufacturing fault and assured to the complainant that the machine would be replaced or repaired. The complainant also requested to the opposite party no.1 and 2 many times to resolve his problem but the opposite parties did not resolve his problem. Hence this compliant and it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount as per the bill alongwith 50,000/- on account of harassment and deficiency in service to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that after the complainants informed the opposite party No.2 alleging some defects in the washing machine on dated 25.04.2018 and the engineer of answering opposite party visited the residence of the complainant on 26.04.2018 and found the drum of the washing machine was not working properly which was immediately rectified by doing some minor adjustments. Post which the washing machine was working perfectly in order & another call was register on dated 18.01.2019 and same issue was found, which was again rectified and complaint was closed. After that one more complaint was registered on 25.01.2019 and on visiting the house of complainant, it was found that Drive assembly was defective and request for replacement of part was raised with the opposite party no.3 and on receiving the part, complainant was contacted for replacement of the same but the complainant refused to replace the same and insisted for refund of money, which was denied by the opposite party No.3. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the warranty period, it is always that the product is repaired to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and refund is only given in exceptional cases only if the products are beyond repair. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties no.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that the present compliant is gross misuse of the process of the laws. It is also submitted that the obligation of the opposite parties under the terms of warranty is only to get set right the washing machine by repairing or replacing defective parts, if any found during inspection and complainant cannot claim more than he has agreed to the time of buy the washing machine under the terms of the warranty. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the party of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence on 19.9.2019. Ld. counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and the evidence of the opposite party No.1 & 2 was closed by the order dated 12.01.2021 of this Commission. Ld. counsel for the OP no.3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, and closed his evidence on dated 3.12.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per bill Ex.C3, the complainant had purchased the washing machine on 24.03.2018 for Rs.21989/-. As per the complainant the alleged machine was defective and was replaced by the opposite party with other washing machine on dated 05.04.2018 which is not denied by the opposite parties. It is also submitted by the opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply that complainant made complaint on 25.04.2018 and the engineer of answering opposite party visited the residence of the complainant on 26.04.2018 and found the drum of the washing machine was not working properly which was immediately rectified by doing some minor adjustments. Another call was register on dated 18.01.2019 and same issue was found, which was again rectified. After that one more complaint was registered on 25.01.2019 and it was found that Drive assembly was defective and request for replacement of part was raised with the opposite party no.3 and on receiving the part, complainant was contacted for replacement of the same but the complainant refused to replace the same. We have also perused the emails dated 24.01.2019 to 05.02.2019 placed on record as Ex.C6 & Ex.C7, as per which, the complainant suffered a bad experience for a long time and was unable to trust the product and services of the company as the machine could not be repaired despite her repeated requests. Hence the complainant is entitled for the refund of price of washing machine in question.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of washing machine i.e. Rs.21989/-(Rupees twenty one thousand nine hundred and eighty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.02.2019 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The complainant is directed to hand over the washing machine in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party no.3.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.01.2021.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
