BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.237 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 04.05.2018

      Date of Decision: 03.12.2021

Vinod Kumar Walia Age 50 years, S/o Mohinder Singh Walia,             H. No.27, Gurdev Nagar, Near New Grain Market, Jalandhar. Mobile No.9041997492

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Satnam Electronics & Gift Centre, Circular Road, Balmiki Gate, Jalandhar-144008 Through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

2.       IFB Service Centre, Kothi No.18, Near Netaji Park, Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar. Through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

3.       IFB Company, Baldev Ware Housing Complex, Vasika No.505, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. Through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:        Sh. Shekhar Prabhakar, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.                            OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

                    Sh. Arun K. Walia, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant wherein he has alleged that on 18.02.2017 he purchased a washing machine Make: I.F.B.WM TL65RCG (TP) for Rs.20,000/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.3014 dated 18.02.2017 and the warranty of the said product was given by OPS from 18.02.2017 to 17.02.2019. The OP No.1 charged extra Rs.2006/- from complainant for extension two year warranty period of above said product. But later on the complainant knew that for the said extra amount received from complainant, the OP No.1 got insured the above said washing machine from CPP Assistance Service Pvt. Ltd. which the complainant never desired because the warranty given by OPs is already for two years from 18.02.2017 to 17.02.2019 and the OP No.1 got issued membership in the shape of insurance for above said product vide Membership No.AC0284093 for the period from 27.02.2017 to 26.02.2019 from CCP Assistance Service Pvt. Ltd. without consent and without demand of complainant. That within warranty period, in the month of May 2018, the above said washing machine became out of order. Its whole water leaked from water tank of washing machine. That the complainant went to OP No.1 and told the above said defect. The OP no.1 directed the complainant to contact their authorized service centre/OP No.2 or lodge the complaint with OP No.3 on their toll-free phone and the complainant lodged the complaint with OPs No.2 & 3 and OP No.2 checked the washing machine and told the complainant that its one part is defective which shall be replaced after two days and told the complainant that they will come after two days and will replace the defective part, but the OP No.2 did not come. After lapse of 15 days OP No.2 came and rectified the fault, but the same defect again arisen after 15 days which caused that the said machine is lying dead in the house of complainant. Despite so many telephonic calls to OPs No.2 & 3, neither OP No.2 nor OP No.3 came to rectify the defect. That prior to May 2018 the above said washing machine had become out of order which the OP No.2 rectified the fault after several requests and visits of complainant but the same defect again arisen. That the washing machine is still lying dead/out of order which the OPs No.2 & 3 neither rectified nor replaced the defective part despite so many requests of complainant. That due to non-repair/non-replacement of the said defective washing machine the complainant as well as his family has been deprived off for its use and suffered a lot of mental tension and harassment and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the above said washing machine with new one and in the alternative to return its full price as per bill i.e. Rs.20,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses and further return excess amount Rs.2006/- and cancel the Membership issued from CPP Assistance Service Pvt. Ltd through OP No.1 and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 and 2 failed to appear and ultimately OPs No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and is liable for dismissal. The complainant has not approached to this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material fats in the complaint. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act, for being false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. It is further averred that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the OP No.3. It is further averred that the machine was sold, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, hence the present complaint be dismissed with cost. It is further averred that the relationship between the OP No.3 and OPs No.1 and 2 is on principal to principal basis. The OP No.3 cannot be held liable for any independent act and omission, if any, committed by the OP. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the washing machine by the complainant from OP No.1 is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.3, filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has sought the relief of replacing his washing machine with new one or to return the full price as per bill alongwith cost of litigation and compensation. It has been alleged by the complainant that the OPs have wrongly charged Rs.2006/- from him for extended warranty, whereas he was made member of insurance company without his consent as the two years warranty was already given by the OPs.

7.                As per bill Ex.C-1, the complainant purchased washing machine make: I.F.B.WM TL65RCG (TP) and this fact has not been denied by the OP No.3 also. As per Ex.C-2, there was two years warranty from 18.02.2017 to 17.02.2019. The contention of the complainant is that an extra amount of Rs.2006/- was received from him without informing him that he was got insured for above washing machine from CPP Assistance Service Pvt. Ltd. as the warranty was already given from 18.02.2017 to 17.02.2019 and the same warranty was given by insurance company, therefore their amount should be returned. As per Ex.C-2 the warranty was from 18.02.2017 to 17.02.2019 and as per Ex.C-3 he was insured with CPP Asset Care and Ex.C-4 is the Membership details-cum-Sales Proforma, in the column ‘Asset Details’, there is specifically mentioned that manufacturer warranty was 2 years i.e. from 2017 to 2019 and there was extended warranty terms in years for two years, meaning thereby that from 2019 to 2021 onwards as the warranty was extended for two years. Thus, it should be existing from 2017 to 2021. Whereas in the Membership details Ex.C-4, the start of membership has been mentioned as 27.02.2017 and end of membership has been mentioned on 26.02.2019. This shows that as per Ex.C-4 only two years warranty was given from 2017 to 2019 which was already given as per EX.C-2. Thus, taking the extra amount for the warranty of same period is illegal. This fact is admitted that on the complaint of the complainant almost after 1½ years when washing machine became out of order, the OP No.2 checked the washing machine and rectified the fault. As per the complainant, again the same defect occurred in the machine which was not rectified.

8.                Perusal of record shows that as per the order of the Commission dated 04.12.2018, the mechanics of OPs went to inspect the machine and gave its report along with CD in the Commission. They inspected the machine on 18.01.2019 and found that the machine was working in satisfactory condition and no defect was found or pointed out by the complainant at that time. As per report, during operation normal operation noise was found. The machine was checked with the help of Electronic Multimeter. Thus, as per the report supported by the affidavit of Hakam Sharma, there was no fault found in the machine at the time of inspection in the year 2019.

9.                From the above said circumstances, it is proved that the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment because of the fault in the machine in the month of May, 2018 and it is also admitted and proved fact that the defect was rectified by the company at that time. Though as per the report, no defect was found at the time of inspection, but since as per the version of the complainant, the machine became out of order twice. The extra amount of Rs.2006/- for extended warranty has been charged whereas there is no extended warranty. So, considering the circumstances, the complainant is entitled for relief.

10.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to remove the defect, if any, is found in the machine within six months from the date of order. Further, all the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.8000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3300/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj     

03.12.2021         Member                          Member           President