Delhi

StateCommission

A/21/2016

M/S IFB INDUSTRIES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANGEETA SINGH & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY GUPTA

14 Sep 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :14.09.2018

Date of Decision : 03.10.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO. 21/2016

In the matter of:

 

M/s. IFB Industries Ltd.,

D-60 Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-I, New Delhi..                                                                                     .........Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1. Sangeeta Singh,

W/o. Shri Vijay Singh,

R/o. B-148, 3^rd Floor,

Lajpat Nagar-I,

New Delhi-110024.                                                                …..Respondent No.1

 

2. M/s. Arvee Sales,

J-15, Central Market,

Lajpat Nagar-II,

New Delhi-110024.                                             …..Respondent No.2

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastab va, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The OP-1has challenged  order dated 10.12.15 passed by District Forum in CC No.237/13 vide which complaint was allowed and the appellant as well as respondent no.2 were directed to refund Rs.28,000/- the purchase price of the Dishwasher jointly and severally, pay Rs.2,482/- paid by respondent no.1 towards extended warranty. OPs were also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and mental agony subject to the respondent no.1 returning the machine.
2. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that respondent no.1 purchased a Dishwasher for Rs.28,000/- vide invoice dated 12.01.12, the same has a warranty of 2 years. The complainant took additional extended warranty of 2 years from 12.01.14 to 11.01.16. The OP-2 delayed installation of the said Dishwasher by 6-7 days and even then before the initial activations, the machine did not function properly. The complainant made several complaints between November, 2012 and February, 2013 the defect was not cured. The engineer of OP-1 opined that defect might be due to water pressure. Complainant spent Rs.15,000/- to install  a pressure pump to feed water to the machine. The problem continued to subsist.  Finally the OP sent their Senior Engineer who found “Error F5” OP-1 sought to lift the machine to check the same at their Service Centre and were willing to send a stand by machine to the complainant for the intervening period. Complainant wrote to the OP to do the needful vide letter dated 29.03.13. On 02.04.13 OP-1 lifted the machine but did not return the same rectified within 7 days as promised by them. On 12.04.12 (Sic it should have been 12.04.13) the complainant received letter from OP-1 stating that they tested the machine in Service Centre and found the machine to be in OK condition. Complainant asked for a written consent for replacement of the rectified machine for any future defects. OP refused to do so. Hence this complaint.
3. OP-1 appeared and contested the complaint, OP-2 was proceeded exparte on the basis of dasti notice allegedly served by complainant.
4. In its evidence by affidavit OP-1 stated that a stand by machine was provided to the complainant. The checked machine was taken to the premises of the complainant on 11.04.13 for installation but complainant refused to get the same installed by stating that same has manufacturing defect.
5. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments, the District Forum found OPs guilty of deficiency in service and passed the impugned order.
6. Notice of appeal was sent to both the respondents. Respondent no.1 appeared in person on 23.05.16. AR of respondent no.2 appeared and filed authority letter. Copy of appeal was supplied. On the next date i.e. 06.12.16 respondent no.1 stated that she did not want to file any reply. Respondent no.2 was proceeded exparte on 22.03.18.
7. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is the case of harassment by the complainant by misusing the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The same are meant for protection of genuine consumer and not for making the greedy complainant a rich person. The complainant sought and District Forum granted relief worth more than the price of the machine. This is more so when appellant has already provided stand by machine which is still with respondent no.1.
8. Counsel for the appellant also draw our attention to order dated 14.05.18 passed by Bench-1 of this Commission in FA No.26/14 titled as M/s. IFB Industries Ltd. vs. Arvind Dhingra vide which the appeal of the present appellant was allowed, order of the District Forum was set aside  and the complaint was dismissed. We have gone through the said order. The same is very much applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
9. For the forgoing reasons the appeal is accepted. Impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
10. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
11. Copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
12. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                    

MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)