BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.245 of 2015
Date of Instt. 04.06.2015
Date of Decision :04.11.2015
Manoj Kumar aged about 42 years son of Joginder Pal, R/o H.No.206, Thakur Singh Colony, Bashirpura, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., 2nd, 3rd & 4th Floors, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector-43, Gurgaon-122002, through its Managing Director.
2. Future World (Samsung Plaza), Vlamiki Gate, Circular Road, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Manager/Partner.
3. Samsung Customer Care Service Centre/Department, Opp.Regent Park Hotel, Avtar Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.VK Singla Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OP No.1.
Opposite parties No.2 & 3 exparte.
Order
Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant was desirous of purchasing a good washing machine for his family use, as such the complainant visited the shop of the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 allured the complainant to purchase the Samsung Washing Machine and assured that the said machine is a quality product of the opposite party No.1 and having all the modern features, having trouble-free working and that the said machine has two years guarantee. The opposite party No.2 also assured that the opposite party No.1 is having its customer care service centre at Jalandhar as such the complainant won't face any problem. Looking to the features explained by the opposite party No.2, the complainant purchased the Samsung Washing Machine WT1007AG/TL-W0535PBF802265 from the opposite party No.2 against the payment of Rs.14,000/- vide the cash memo No.1673 dated 6.11.2014 and the opposite party No.2 supplied the said machine to the complainant. The complainant is living in joint family with his brother and his brother has constructed his new house and he advised the complainant that till he shifts to the new house, the complainant's family should keep on using his machine. Thus, after purchase of the machine, the complainant had kept the same packed as supplied by the opposite party No.2. However, there was inauguration of the house of brother of the complainant on 9.5.2015 and he shifted to his new house. Thus, the machine was first time used on 13.5.2015, but when operated the spinning tub of the machine did not work, thus, the complainant made a phone call to the opposite party No.2 informing about the problem and the opposite party No.2 promised that the mechanic would visit the house of the complainant on the next day to attend the complaint about machine, but no one came to attend the complaint on the next day. It was only after repeated phone calls and personal visits of the complainant to the opposite party No.2, a person of the opposite parties came to the house of the complainant to attend the complaint in the evening after 3-4 days. The complainant showed the machine to the person of the opposite parties, who told that it would take sometime to see the problem. However, after few minutes the complainant heard a sound like breaking of something, but when the complainant asked the said person about the sound, he told that it was of opening of the plastic locks of the machine and there is nothing to worry. After spending some time, said person made the spinner working but it gave some sound while operative. However, the person of the opposite parties told that the sound would not last for much time and if the complainant still faces any problem, the complainant may contact the opposite parties. Thereafter, on the next day, when the complainant saw the machine in day light, the complainant was shocked to know that the person coming to attend the complaint had in fact broken the backside of the washing machine and had wrongly told the complainant that the sound was of opening of plastic locks. Thus, on coming to know about the same, the complainant immediately made a phone call to the opposite party No.2 telling the above fact and with the request that the machine be replaced and the opposite party No.2 promised to send the person of the opposite party No.3 to the house of the complainant on the same day and to resolve the problem of the complainant but no person of the opposite parties came and it was again only after repeated phone calls and personal visit of the complainant to the opposite party No.2, that two persons of the opposite parties came to the house of the complainant and they simply applied Fevikwick to the broken side and left the machine still giving unusual sound while operating and the persons of the opposite parties have broken the same as stated above. The washing machine supplied by the opposite parties did not work at all properly and the persons of the opposite party have also broken the backside of the said machine and the charm and purpose of purchasing new machine is defeated and the complainant and his family are facing great mental agony. Thus, the complaint has been requesting the opposite parties through the opposite party No.2 to replace the machine or to refund the amount with damages but the opposite party did not take any action and the opposite parties have failed to accede to the genuine requests of the complainant and it is pertinent to mention that the machine has not worked properly even for a single day rather even for a single time. In fact, the machine is having manufacturing defect. The complainant has requested the opposite parties many times to replace the machine or to refund the amount paid by the complainant as stated above, but the opposite parties have paid no heed to the requests of the complainant despite the fact that the machine has not worked properly even for a single time. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the machine or to replace it. He has also claimed damages.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared but did not file any written reply inspite of number of opportunities afforded to it for this purpose. Consequently, opposite party No.1 was debarred from filing any written reply vide order date 17.9.2015.
3. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copy of document Ex.C1 and closed rebuttal evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and closed evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.
7. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 contended that complainant never approached the opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.3 and has through the present complaint for the first time set up its grievance which is wholly baseless but opposite party No.1 is still willing to repair the machine if there is any genuine problem in it. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the washing machine in question did not work properly right from the start. He further contended that when the machine was used for first time on 13.5.2015 its spinning tub did not work and as such complainant made a phone call to opposite party No.2 who promised to send mechanic. He further contended that a person of the opposite parties came to the house of the complainant to attend the complaint in the evening after 3-4 days who inspected the machine and told the complainant that it would take sometime to rectify the problem but however, after few minutes he heard a sound of breaking of something, when he asked about the above sound, he told that it was sound of opening of the plastic locks of the machine. He further contended that after spending sometime, said person made the spinner working but it started giving sound while operating. He further contended that on the next day, when the complainant saw the machine in day light, he found that the person coming to attend the complaint had infact broken the backside of the washing machine. He further contended that complainant made a phone call to the opposite party No.2 explaining the above problem and opposite party No.2 promised to send the mechanic of opposite party No.3 to the house of the complainant to resolve the problem and after repeated phone calls and personal visits to opposite party No.2, two persons of the opposite parties came to the house of the complainant and they simply applied Fevikwick to the broken side but machine is still giving unusual sound while in operation. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. In his affidavit Ex.OPW1/A Sunil Bhargava, General Manager of Customer Satisfaction Department tendered by opposite party No.1, it is alleged that there is no doubt that the defects have arisen owing to the complainant mishandling of the washing machine and onus of the same is being intentionally put on opposite party No.1. So in a way in his above affidavit, opposite party No.1 admitted the defects in the machine, although according to it the same are result of mishandling of the washing machine. If there are defects in the washing machine, the complainant must have approached the opposite parties/dealer complaining about the same. In his affidavit Ex.CA the complainant has alleged that the person of the opposite parties who came to rectify the defect had infact broken the backside of the machine which was noticed by him on the next day in day light. The opposite party No.1 has not tendered affidavit of the mechanic or person who visited the house of the complainant and only the said person could deny that the backside of the washing machine was not broken by him and it was the complainant who is responsible for the same. Sunil Bhargava, General Manager of Customer Satisfaction Department never visited the house of the complainant to inspect the washing machine. So not much value can be attached to his affidavit. Consequently, the version of the complainant is liable to be accepted.
8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party No.1 is directed either to replace the washing machine of the complainant or to refund its price to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
04.11.2015 Member Member President
