BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 93 of 2016
Date of Institution: 28.3.2016
Date of Decision: 23.1.2017
Harish Bansal aged about 46 years son of Shri Kirti Kumar Bansal, resident of Gali No.2, Lohia Basti, Begu Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Shakti Electronics, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its proprietor.
2. Samsung Electronics Care Centre, Near Bikaner Mishthan Bhandar, Barnala Road, Sirsa through its authorized signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant was in need of Automatic washing machine, therefore, on 8.6.2015 he had purchased Samsung FAFL machine bearing Model No.WF652UBHSD from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.32,500/- vide bill No.16487 on the full assurances given by op no.1 regarding quality of the same. The op no.1 had given five years warranty of the washing machine to the complainant. However, within a short period of its purchase, the same started giving troubles as the clothes washed through the said machine usually became not wearable. Not only this, there was a leakage in the tub of said machine and dryer is also not working properly. He further noticed that the motor of the same also stopped working. The complainant contacted op no.1 and made him aware about the defects in the product and requested to inspect and to repair the same but op no.1 instead of taking any step instructed him to contact the op no.2. On the request of complainant to op no.2, the op no.2 sent his mechanics who inspected the product and some minor repairs were done by them and they assured that defects have been removed. But to the surprise of complainant soon after the minor repairs, the washing machine kept on giving same troubles. Thereafter, mechanic of op no.2 many times visited the premises of complainant and every time minor repairs were done but no improvement was found and ultimately it was told to him that there is manufacturing defect in the machine and advised to contact op no.3 on toll free number. The complainant accordingly contacted op no.3 telephonically on the toll free number several times but to no effect. The complainant also got served legal notice upon ops but of no avail. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 did not appear despite due service and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared and filed written version submitting therein that complainant approached the answering ops on 8.6.2015 for demonstration of the unit. Thereafter, on 29.11.2015, the complainant came with washing problem and the engineers of the company checked the unit and the same was found OK. No problem was found. Thereafter, on 15.12.2015, complainant again lodged a complaint and the engineers of the company visited the premises of the complainant and only dirt cleaning was done on 22.1.2016. The complainant again approached to the answering ops and again engineers of the company was deputed and it was found that unit was working properly as per the parameters of the company. It was told to the complainant that there is no issue in the unit, but he was adamant for replacement of the unit and as per the company policy it cannot be replaced. The ops are still ready and willing to repair the unit as per the company policy.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1/A, copy of invoice dated 8.6.2015 Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5. On the other hand, ops No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. It is established on record that complainant purchased the washing machine in question from opposite party no.1 on 8.6.2015 for a sum of Rs.32,500/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. The complainant is alleging defects in the washing machine again and again despite repairs by ops in the warranty period whereas according to ops No.2 & 3 there is no issue in the unit and cannot be replaced but they are still ready and willing to repair the unit. The ops have claimed that their engineers checked the unit for three times but did not find any major defect in the same but they have not placed on file any affidavit of any Engineer or inspection report in support of their version. As the complainant is alleging defects in the washing machine in the warranty period, he is entitled either for defect free washing machine in question or for refund of the price after some deductions.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct all the opposite parties jointly and severally either to make the washing machine defect free after replacement of defective part, if any free of costs or to refund 70% of the costs of the washing machine to the complainant (after deduction of 30% amount from Rs.32500/-) and they will be entitled to washing machine in question from complainant. This order should be complied with by all the ops within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:23.1.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
