Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by M/s.Lavi Impex Private Limited through its Authorized Representative (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, in the month of January-2010, the representative of the complainant visited the showroom of O.P.No.1. Promotional video was shown to him and relying on that video, he booked IFB Neptune Dish Washer for amount of `25,700/-. It was told that there will be absolute cleaning of the daily used steel and other utensils. While using the dish washer, the complainant was shocked and surprised that the Opponents mislead the complainant. The dish washer was not cleaning the utensils properly. The product was defective. Hitter of machine was not working properly. Therefore, complaint was lodged with O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 replaced the dish washer within a week. Ever after replacement of the old dish washer, new dish washer was not upto the mark and was not cleaning the utensils properly. Therefore, again the complaint was lodged with the servicing centre of O.P.No.2 by name Elite. The technician attended the problem but he could not remove the defect. Different engineers were giving different instructions to the complainant. The complainant was believing them. When the complainant followed their instructions, the utensils were spoiled and got scratches and cracks. The complainant was fade up with the incorrect instructions given by the engineers. Therefore, he lodged complaint with the opponents. Thereafter, one Mr.Abu Talib from IFB called one engineer who told that earlier engineers did not give proper instructions. Hence, the problem could not be sorted out. Even after the instructions given by the last engineer were followed, there were number of problems in cleaning the utensils. The warranty period was for two years. The problem arose since the day of purchase. As the problems were not sorted out, legal notice dated 1st July, 2011 was issued through advocate for replacement of the dish washer or refund the purchase amount of `25,700/- and to pay compensation of `25,000/- for damage caused to the utensils. Inspite of notice, dish washer was not replaced or the amount was not refunded. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint to replace the dish washer or to refund the purchase amount of `25,700/-. He has also claimed compensation of `25,000/- for damages caused to the utensils and `20,000/- for mental hardship. He also claimed `2,000/- for cost of this proceeding.
2) The opponents were served and remained absent since beginning. Therefore, the mater was proceed ex-parte against them.
3) The complainant has filed affidavit of evidence of one Shri Jamil Akhtar, Authorised Representative of the complainant and also produced purchase bill, manual of dish washer and correspondence. As per the purchase bill, the complainant had purchased IFB Dish Washer Neptune for `25,700/- dated 30th January, 2010. Earlier dish washer was replaced by replacement challan dated 11th February, 2010. Even thereafter, the complainant had issued notice complaining several problems with the machine. Copy of notice is produced on record. The complainant’s representative has stated on oath that engineers of opponents were attending and giving several instructions. Inspite of following those instructions there were scratches on utensils and result was not proper. Therefore, legal notice was issued on 1st July, 2011 to the opponents. The complainant has produced acknowledgements on record showing that notice was served on the opponents. Inspite of service of notice, no reply was given by the opponents. Even though copy of complaint was served to the opponents through this Forum, the opponents did not bother to attend this Forum and to file the written statement. Thus, the contentions of the complainant remained unchallenged. The complainant has produced sufficient evidence on record to show the purchase of dish washer. As there was problem, it was replaced. Inspite of replacement, problem continues. The complainant suffered loss due to damage of utensils. The purpose of purchasing dish washer was not served as the utensils got scratches and cracks. As the evidence produced by the complainant is not challenged, we come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for refund of purchase amount of `25,700/-.
4) According to the complainant, due to use of dish washer utensils were damaged. The complainants has calculated damages to the extent of `25,000/-. The same is not challenged by the opponents. We think the damages claimed by the complainant are reasonable. On going through the correspondence by the complainant it is clear that the opponents had not given proper service. Due to deficiency in service, the complainant suffered mental agony. The complainant has claimed damages of `20,000/- for his mental agony. We think compensation of `10,000/- towards mental agony will suffice purpose. The complainant is also entitled for cost of this proceeding `1,000/-.
5) Thus, the complainant is entitled for refund of purchase amount of `25,700/. Utensils damages `25,000/-. Compensation towards mental agony `10,000/- and cost of this proceeding `1,000/-. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1) The complaint is allowed.
2) The opponents are directed to pay `25,700/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Only) towards refund of dish washer.
3) The opponents are also directed to pay `25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards the damages caused to utensils and `10,000/-(Rs.Ten Thousand Only) towards mental agony.
4) The opponents are further directed to pay `1,000/- (Rs.One Thousand Only) towards the cost of this proceeding.
5) The order under clause (2) to (4) is hereby directed to comply within a period of one month.
6) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced on 2nd September, 2013