Sanjeet Thakur              Vs.              Ritwik Enterprises etc.

23.11.17

Present:       Shri S.K. Roy Adv. for the complainant.

None for OP. 

None has been appearing on behalf of the OP since 14.10.2013.

We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the record.

Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.

The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Whirpool Washing Machine manufactured by OP-2 from OP-1 on 28.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.12,500/- but the washing machine did not function properly since the date of its installation and the complainant faced a lot of problem. Complainant approached the authorized service centre of OP-2 but the defects were not been rectified and the machine is still non-functional. Legal notice dated 28.08.2012 was sent to the OPs but to no effect. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to OPs to replace the washing machine in question with a new washing machine, to pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony, harassment and financial loss and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.

OPs in the written statement have inter-alia pleaded that the OPs never refused to provide services under the warranty period and they are still ready to provide after sale services under the terms of the warranty. It is stated that complaints were made by the complainant which were attended on the same day. The complainant had purchased one trolley worth Rs. 1,000/- on 06.02.2012 while his complaint No. DL0212003728 was being attended on the same day. In response to complaint No. DL0212005569 dated 08.02.2012, the washing machine was lifted to the workshop/ authorised service centre and was delivered back on 10.02.2012 after repairing the wire free of cost. It is denied that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Unless and until there was/ is manufacturing defect in the washing machine in question, the same cannot be directed to be replaced with a new machine.

No affidavit in evidence has been filed on behalf of the complainant.

Therefore, as there is no manufacturing defect in the washing machine in question, OPs are not guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(Naina Bakshi)                                                              (N. K. Goel)

Member                                                                         President

Announced on 23.11.2017.