Delhi

East Delhi

CC/157/2018

PREM CHADHA / PREETI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGEM ELE. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Mar 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  157/2018

 

	Sewera Chhabra D/o Shri Manoj Chhabra (through its SPA holder Ms. Prem Chadha @ Preeti W/o Shri B.M. Chadha R/o 13, First Floor, New Layal Pur Delhi 110051 (As per amended memo of parties)	….Complainant
Versus
1	Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A-67, Guru Nanak Pur Main Road, Vikas Marg New Delhi-110092	……OP1
2	L.G. Electronics Pvt Ltd. Plot No. 51, Surajpur, Kasana Road Greater Noida NOIDA - 201310	……OP2

 

                                                                       

 

Date of Institution: 14.05.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 14.03.2022

Judgment Passed on: 23.03.2022

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member) – on leave

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. Before coming to the facts, it is worth observing that initially the complaint was filed by Smt. Prem Chadha @Preeti but after taking objections at the initial stage as well as at the final stage of arguments by the OP, fresh memo of parties was filed by the complainant stating that Smt. Sewera Chhabra had purchased the machine and had authorized Smt. Prem Chadha @ Preeti to file the present complaint. Accordingly the matter has been titled as per amended memo of parties. It is also matter of record that the said application has been allowed and therefore, all the proceedings done by Smt. Prem Chadha stands validated.
2. The complaint pertains to defect in a washing machine sold by OP1 and manufactured by OP2. A washing machine was purchased by the complainant on 27.11.2017 for Rs.38,400/-. The machine started giving trouble within 15 to 20 days from the date of purchase. The clothes were getting torn and stretched during wash.
3. A complaint was lodged with OP2. It is alleged that a service engineer from OP2 came and only touched the inner side of the washing machine and stated there was no issue with the washing machine. The complainant was also offered three years Annual Maintenance Contact (AMC) by OP2 additionally for a sum of Rs.5900/- which was purchased on 27.12.2017.
4. The problem was not fixed and numerous complaints were made to OP2. Various emails to OP2 were sent but only auto generated acknowledgments were received. It is alleged that the service engineer used unprofessional and rough language.
5. The complainant prays for refund of Rs.38,400/- with interest, refund of AMC alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
6. Complainant has filed tax invoice dated 27.11.2017, terms & conditions of warranty, receipt for AMC dated 27.12.2017, complainants dated 27.2.18, 28.2.2018, 5.3.2018, 6.3.2018, 7.3.2018, 22.4.2018.

 

7. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to OPs. None appeared for OP1 who was proceeded ex-parte on 13.8.2019.
8. OP2 in its reply has stated that complaint is devoid of any material basis. As per their record Sewera Chhabra is the purchaser of the product and hence, Prem Chaddha (Preeti) is neither a consumer of OP nor has any locus standi to file a complaint. It is admitted that washing machine was purchased on 27.11.2017. A complaint was made within one month of said purchase regarding clothes getting torn and stretched. The service engineer of OP2 visited the complainant and found the product in perfect working condition. It is submitted that any defect or improper functioning of washing machine is due to improper use and extra expectations by the complainant. OP2 provided a demo to the complainant including some directions as to how to use the washing machine for better wash, for example the jacket should be washed one at a time, all clothes should be pre checked, machine should not be over loaded and so on.  As these directions were not followed, the problem kept on recurring. There is no technical/manufacturing defect in the washing machine.

OP has specifically denied that complainant faced the same issue with every wash. Each and every complaint has been attended by competent service engineer and who duly inspected the machine but no problem/defect was found.

9. The complainant has filed amended memo of parties alongwith Special Power of Attorney. Special Power of Attorney is executed by Sewera Chhabra in favour of Ms. Prem Chadha regarding this matter. Accordingly, Smt. Prem Chadha @ Preeti filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit & written arguments.
10. OP2 has also filed an affidavit supporting its averments in its reply to the pleadings. OP2 has reiterated that Sewera Chhabra paid the entire cost of washing machine under Finance Scheme offered by Bajaj Finserve and Prem Chadha (Preeti) has no locus to file the complaint. OP2 has filed job sheets dated 26.12.2017, 22.1.2018, 6.2.2018, 16.2.2018,
11. The Commission has perused the pleadings and considered the arguments by both the parties. It is admitted by both the parties that a washing machine was purchased by Sewera Chhabra on 27.11.2017 for sum of Rs.36,400/-. An AMC was purchased on 27.12.2017 for three years for sum of Rs.5900/-. Various complaints made by the complainant through her SPA and visits of service engineer are also admitted by both the parties.
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1042 OF 2020) has held as under:

24.   To decide these issues, it would be apposite to refer to the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(d) of the Act, which reads as follows:­ “2 Definitions. ­ (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

4. "consumer" means any person who, ­
   1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such used is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
   2. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person…;”

25. The definition of consumer under the Act is very wide and it not only includes the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration but also includes the beneficiary of such services who may be a person other than the person who hires or avails of services.

26. Taking the issue of privity of contract, we are of the considered view that as far as the Act is concerned, it is not necessary that there should be privity of contract between the insurance company and the claimants. The definition of consumer under Section 2(d) quoted hereinabove is in 2 parts. Sub­clause (i) of Section 2(1)(d) deals with a person who buys any goods and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods as long as the use is made with the approval of such person. Therefore, the definition of consumer even in the 1st part not only includes the person who has purchased but includes any user of the goods so long as such user is made with the approval of the person who has purchased the goods.

13. Perusal of the aforesaid provision and observations made by Apex  Court makes it clear that a purchaser or any person who uses such goods with the approval of such purchase is a consumer within the meaning of this Act. In the present case the original purchaser has executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of the user. Hence, the present complaint is maintainable.
14. OP2 in its reply has admitted that the problems of tearing of clothes and washing quality were recurring due to improper use. The service engineer from OP2 had provided directions to use the washing machine for better wash quality like washing of one jacket at a time and pre-checking stitches of cloths before washing.
15. Complainant made many complainants to OP on different dates for problems in washing machine against which Job sheets were raised as under:

	Service Code
		Abnormal noise-ABNO
		Abnormal noise-ABNO
		Regular Maintenance visit
		Explanation Done
		Abnormal noise-ABNO
		Abnormal noise-ABNO
		Regular Maintenance visit
		Explanation Done
		Laundry damaged
		Laundry damaged
		Regular Maintenance visit
		Explanation Done
		Wash quality not good
		Wash quality not good
		Regular Maintenance visit
		Explanation Done

16. The job sheets show that some abnormal noise was emitted from the washing machine, laundry was damaged and wash quality was not good during service visits. OP’s explanation that the consumer should wash one jackat at a time or pre-check the stitching of every piece of clothing placed in the washing machine does not hold any force.
17. A consumer purchases a brand new product so that he doesn’t face any hardship or inconvenience which is expected from second hand or third hand product.  If a person has to call for service time and again to rectify one defect or the other then he is not in a position to enjoy the product and he suffers physical discomfort and mental harassment.
18. Hence, keeping in view all such facts and circumstances the prepondance of probability shows that OP2 is guilty of manufacturing a product which was defective and not consumer friendly, It is also matter of record that the washing machine is with the complainant and she have used it for some time, therefore, the following relief is granted in favour of the complainant : -

1. Refund of 75% amount of Rs. 38,400/- with 9% interest from date of purchase by OP2
2. Refund Rs.5,900/- paid as AMC by OP.
3. Pay a consolidated amount of Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment, physical inconveniences and legal expenses by OP.

19. Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
20. File be consigned to Record Room.
21. Announced on 23.03.2022

DELHI

 

 

(Ritu Garodia) Member (On Leave)

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President