Haryana

Ambala

CC/158/2015

Smt. Kavita Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiva Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

M.Bindal

18 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 158 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 10.06.2015

                                                          Date of decision   : 18.08.2017

 

          Smt. Kavita Gupta wife of Sh. Akhil Gupta resident of House No.2286, Sector -9, Urban Estate, Ambala City.   

……. Complainant.

 

1. Shiva Electronics, SCO No.4 & 5 shoping complex, Model Town, Ambala Club, Ambala city, through its Authorized signatory.
2. I.F.B. Service Station, Ram Bagh Road, Near Parkash Halwai, above Bagga Advocate office, Ambala Cantt.
3. I.F.B. Industries Ltd., Home appliances Division, 98-99, Kunjpura Road, New hospital Chowk (front of medical Enclave) Karnal, 132001.
4. I.F.B. Industries Ltd. Home appliances Division, L1, Verna Electronic City Verna Salcete, Goa, 403722.  

….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                   

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER       

 

 

Present:       Sh. Akhil, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Naveen Chawla, counsel for OPs No.2, 3 & 4.       

                   OP No.1 already exparte.

 

ORDER:

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased one piece of I.F.B. washing machine model No. TL-7233 form OP No.1 for sum of Rs.16,150/- vide receipt NO.110 dated 18.08.2010 alongwith warranty of two years which was extended by the company on payment from time to time and the warranty of the said washing machine was extended vide ICR No.1454 dated 07.09.2012 & ICR 2262 dated 29.12.2014 on payment of Rs.4073/- & 4144/- respectively. Further submitted that the said washing machine was not in working condition on 19.08.10 i.e. one day after its purchase, the machine started giving voice and the complaint No.4958279 was lodged and on 20.08.2010, the engineer of the company came to the house of the complainant and replaced the shocker of the machine and also charged Rs.300/- vide receipt No.853 dated 20.08.10 for inlet Pipe and after one month the engineer of the company charged Rs.300/- vide receipt No.1230 dated 23.09.2010 for DESCAL. Thereafter the said machine did not work properly and the complainant again lodged complaint No.5597503 on 22.12.2010 and various complaints bearing No.7459454, 7529628 etc. and the said machine did not work properly and the Engineer of the company on many times change the shockers of the said machine but the said machine could not be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and at present the said machine is not working properly as the same is not washing, rinsing & spinning the clothes and the company failed to rectify the said machine. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs No. 2, 3 and 4 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement, however, OP No.1 did not join the proceedings of the case and was proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 30.07.2015.  OPs No. 2, 3 and 4 in their joint written statement submitted that the washing machine in question has been given to the complainant after inspection and his entire satisfaction. Further submitted that the present complaint is time barred, as per the complainant, the washing machine was purchased by the complainant on 18.08.2010 and the present complaint has been filed in the month of June, 2015 and the limitation for filing the complaint as per provision of Section 24A of the complaint is for two years and did not produce any expert opinion/documentary proof in the form of evidence to prove that the washing machine in question is having any type of manufacture defect. Further submitted that the complainant has availed Annual Maintenance Contract on payments and the said AMCs is valid till 28.12.2016 over the appliance in question and the complainant has not provided any of the copies of the ICRs to the OPs till date. Further submitted that the appliance was installed by the Technician of the OP No.3 and 4 at the house of the complainant on 20.08.2010 but neither the shockers of the machine were defective nor were the same replaced. The allegations of the charging of amount of Rs.300/- for the inlet pipe etc are false and baseless and the complainant had purchased DESCAL which is a chemical for cleaning of the washing machine. The DESCAL used to clean/ de-scale the appliance from inside without opening of the appliance. The complainant had purchased the said consumable item for better utilization of the appliance which is not a part of the standard fitment. So, OPs No.2 to 4 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 to 4 has also tendered affidavits as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-5 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The grievance of complainant is that washing machine in question is starting giving problems like giving voice, not washing, rinsing & spinning the clothes during the warranty period and the complainant had made numbers of complaints regarding the above said defect and the Technician of the company visited to the house of the complainant on 20.08.2010 vide complaint No.4958279 and he replaced the shocker of the machine and also charged Rs.300/- vide receipt No.853 dated 20.08.2010 for Inlet Pipe as per Annexure C-2 but the washing machine did not work properly and the defect could not be rectified by the OPs. Therefore, the complainant requested to OPs to get rectified the above said manufacturing defect or replace the washing machine in question with new one, but despite that his grievance could not be redressed forcing him to approach this Forum.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OPs No.2 to 4 has argued that the OPs No.3 and 4 received requests from the complainant regarding problem in washing machine and technician visited to the house of the complainant for attending the complaint on 24.01.2015 against complaint No.14781855 on 14.02.2015, ticket No. 14979788 on 25.03.2015 and job card No.15392244 and attended these complaints, washing machine was checked by the technician deputed by the Ops and the same was found working properly and the complainant signed the job cards and also acknowledged that the complainant was completely satisfied with the performance of the appliance  as per Annexure-3 to Annexure-4.

5.                In the present case, the complainant come with the plea that the washing machine in question is started giving problems like giving voice, not washing, rinsing & spinning the clothes during the warranty period but the OPs neither rectified the defect nor refunded the amount or replaced the machine in question. The complainant has also paid amount of Rs.8219 for obtaining the extended warranty and the said AMCs are valid till 28.12.2016 over the appliance in question as per Annexure C-5 and Annexure C-6. It is also clear that the OP has not rectified the problem which was occurred during the warranty period. The machine in question becomes defective and complainant could not use the same. Complainant has to purchase the new washing machine on 09.07.2015 for amount of Rs.20,990/-. The above said appliance is necessary for daily use and it is a part and parcel of life in this modern era. On the other hand, OP has argued that they have rectified the problem but documents Annexure R-3 to Annexure R-5, job cards issued by the Ops reveal that the product in question has went out of order number of times. Therefore, the complainant has to visit service centre for rectifying the defect. Last job sheet dated 25.03.2015 also bearing the signature of customer on the column of satisfactory service but the complainant had filed the present complaint on the ground that the washing machine is not working properly till date. Had the washing machine worked properly then there was no need to complainant to approach to this Forum.

6.                In view of above discussion, it is clear that the washing machine is not working properly and defect could not be rectified by the Ops. In the present case, the complainant had already purchased a new washing machine during the pendency of the present complaint. So, there is no necessity to replace the washing machine in question and the complainant is entitled to refund the costs of washing machine amounting of Rs.16,150/-. Hence, the present complaint is allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To  refund the costs of washing machine amount of Rs.16,150/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :18.08.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

            (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                          Member