BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:340 of 2013
Date of Institution: 18.06.2013
Date of Decision:06.03.2017
Om Parkash aged about 61 years son of Sh. Ram Singh, resident of village Jui, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, presently residing at Uttam Nagar, Near New Holland Tractor Agency, Loharu Road, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Vijay Electronics, Radhika Complex, opposite K.M. Public School, Hansi Road, Bhiwani.
- Samsung Electrical Company (address to be disclosed by respondent/opposite party no. 1).
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Satish Kumar, Advocate proxy counsel of
Sh. D.V. Lamba, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a washing machine from OP no. 1 make of Samsung Electricals Company, model 7.2 kg. for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- vide bill no. 17260 dated 20.12.2011 with two years warranty. It is alleged that since very beginning of the purchase of washing machine, there was a manufacturing defect as the same was not functioning properly and under 7.2 lg. weight the same become overload and stopped its function. It is alleged that the complainant had visited to the shop of OP no. 1 and complained the matter then OP no. 1 assured to the complainant to remove the defect of washing machine as early as possible. It is alleged that then complainant again visited to the shop of OP no. 1 but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Ops on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent never received any intimation with regard to alleged defect. It is submitted that whenever the complainant made complaint about non functioning of machine, the same was duly attended to and the unit was made Ok. It is submitted that the answering OP is still ready to repair the unit as per company policy. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence document Annexure C-1 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the washing machine from OP no. 1 vide bill dated 20.12.2011 Annexure C-1 with two years warranty. He submitted that the washing machine of the complainant is having manufacturing defect and not functioning properly. The complainant again and again visited the OP no. 1 to get rectify the defects in the washing machine but the OP no. 1 refused to replace the washing machine or to get rectified the defects of washing machine.
6. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant never made complaint with regard to the defect in the washing machine as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not made any complaint to OP no. 2 on the toll free number regarding the defect in the washing machine as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not obtained any expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect in the washing machine. The complaint of the complainant is false and baseless.
7. We have perused the record carefully. The complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1, the photocopy of the bill and no other document has been placed by him on the file in support of his contention. Merely, there are pleadings of manufacturing defects in the washing machine by the complainant in his complaint. The pleadings need proof. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his contention that the washing machine is having the manufacturing defects. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to get rectify the defects in the washing machine. The complainant is directed to take his washing machine to the service centre of the company for the removal of the defects within 15 days from the date of passing of this order and the Ops are directed to get remove the defects within 30 days from the date of the delivery of the washing machine by the complainant to it. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 06.03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
