Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/31/2017

Gurpeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vinod T V Center - Opp.Party(s)

Sh T S Kang

07 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 31 of 2017

                                                     Date of institution : 05.05.2017                                               

                                                    Date of decision    : 07.08.2018

Gurpreet Singh aged about 28 years son of Sh. Nachhatar Singh, resident of Mohalla Behlolpuri, Ward No.3, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Vinod T.V. Center, Main Bazaar, Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. Bajwa Electronics, opposite New Service Station(Petrol Pump), Bassi Road, Sirhind Mandi-140406 through its Partner/Proprietor.
3. LLOYD Electric & Engineering Limited having its Head Office at Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.

Correspondence Address: Plot-2, Industrial Area, Kakkaji, New Delhi-110019.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11,12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                  

      Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh.T.S.Kang, Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                      Sh. Sapandeep Singh, Adv.Cl. for OPs.

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Gurpreet Singh aged about 28 years son of Sh. Nachhatar Singh, resident of Mohalla Behlolpuri, Ward No.3, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11, 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a LLOYD Washing Machine of 8 Kg, fully automatic and front loading for an amount of Rs.11,900/- from OP No.1 on 02.01.2016.  In the month of December 2016, within the warranty period, the said machine started giving trouble as bearings of the machine started making a loud noise at the time of use of the machine and also running slow at the time of washing. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OPs through OP No.1, and the OP No.2 informed the complainant that although the complaint pertains to the manufacturing defect but he will get the washing machine repaired and change the Gear Box and Basketball Seal of said machine, as the same is within the warranty period and they prepared the job sheet on 27.02.2017. OP No.2 got the washing machine repaired but the defects could not be removed from the same.  The machine in question is having manufacturing defects and the same cannot be removed by repair. Thus, the OPs are bound to replace the washing machine in question with a new one or to refund the sale price of the same but they refused to do so. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the price of machine i.e. 11,900/- and Rs.50,000/- as damages including punitive damages.
3.           The complaint is contested by the OPs. In reply to complaint OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and has not come with clean hands; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; the complainant has no locus standi and/or cause of action to file the present complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP No.1 stated that he is only the authorized reseller of the Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd and his business is only to sell the products of the said company. After sale service, repair and other services regarding warranty of the product is provided by the company only as per warranty policy and OP No.1 has nothing to do with the same. From the date of purchase and its installation, no complaint regarding its non-functioning was ever made to OP No.1 by the complainant.  It is further stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the said machine and in case there is any fault/defect in the said washing machine, then the complainant can inform OP No.3 and OP No.2 will repair the same on the instructions of OP No.3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In reply to complaint OP No.2 also raised similar preliminary objections as raised by OP No.1. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP No.2 stated that the first complaint was made by the complainant vide complaint No. LEEL090117016526 on 09.01.2017 and on the said complaint, OP No.2 replaced the Spin Motor Spin/Bellow. Thereafter the complainant again lodged complaint vide complaint No.LEEL250217138209 dated 25.02.2017 and on the said complaint, OP No.2 adjusted/set the Break wire. Then on the third complaint lodged by complainant vide complaint No.LEEL120417334398 dated 12.04.2017, the engineers of OP No.2 visited the premises of the complainant for repair of product but the complainant did not allow the engineers of OP No.2 to enter into his premises and to check the unit/product.  It is further stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the said washing machine and in case there is any fault/defect, then the complainant can inform OP No.3 and OP No.2 is ready to repair the same on the instructions of OP No.3.  OP No.2 is only a service provider and it has no authority to replace the product. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No. 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.           In reply to complaint OP No.3 also raised similar preliminary objections as raised by OP No.1 and OP No.2. As regards the facts of the complaint OP No.3 also stated similar facts as stated by OP No.2.  However, OP No.3 stated that it is ready to get the washing machine repaired in question from OP No.2 and to remove such defect, if any, in the washing machine. The OP No.3 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence bill dated 02.01.2016 Ex. C-1, copy of job card Ex. C-2, his affidavit Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence true copies of documents Ex. OP-1 to Ex.OP-6, affidavit of Ram Singh Ex. OP-7, affidavit of Leela Ram Ex. OP-8, affidavit of Gajender Bhargav Ex. OP-9 and closed the evidence.
7.           Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased the said washing machine (Lloyd make) from OP No.1 which started giving trouble during the warranty period itself. OPs were contacted through OP No.1 and the OP No.2 informed that the said washing machine has a manufacturing defect, but since it is within the warranty period, so it will be repaired. OP No.2 repaired it but defects could not be removed. In fact OP No.2 changed certain parts of the machine at the time of first complaint and again repaired it at the time of second complaint. But the machine did not work properly and the defects continued to exist. Ld. counsel further argued that the machine has some manufacturing defect, but the OPs do not accept it and hence refuse to refund the amount of the machine. In this regard, the Ld. counsel cited reply of OP No.1, wherein in para No.5, OP No.1 stated that OP No.2 had opined that the machine had manufacturing defect( though OP No.2 tried to repair it but could not). However, OP No.1 in para No.7 has denied the aforesaid fact that the machine is having manufacturing defect. OP No.1 further stated that the complainant should contact OP No.3 and on its orders OP No.2 shall repair the said machine. In the end, Ld. counsel prayed for acceptance of complaint and order exchange of said defective machine with a new one or refund of the price of the machine beside awarding compensation.
8.           Ld.counsel for the OPs argued that the said washing machine does not have any manufacturing defect in it and has been repaired properly twice. Third time, when engineers of OP No.2 went to check up the machine, the complainant did not allow them to enter the house rather demanded a new machine in exchange of the aforesaid machine. He further argued that OPs are still ready to repair the said machine, if any defect persists in it. He further pointed out that as per terms and conditions of the manufacturing company, the machine can only be repaired but not exchanged with a new one. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9.           We have gone through the written arguments, evidence placed on record and heard the Ld. counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the washing machine in question has not been working properly despite repaired twice. Manufacturing defect has not been established. Hence, we accept this complaint and direct OP No.3 to get the said washing machine checked up from OP No.2 or any other authorized agency to establish if the said washing machine is having any manufacturing defect or not. If the washing machine is having some manufacturing defect, then OP No.3 is directed to replace the said defective washing machine with a new one( Provision for exchange of washing machine exists in the terms and conditions) or refund the price of the said machine i.e. Rs.11,900/-. However, if the machine can be repaired, then OP No.3 shall get the said washing machine repaired, even by changing defective parts free of cost, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. Let his order be complied within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The complainant is held entitled to lumpsum Rs.3,000/- on account of compensation and litigation charges.

10                  The arguments on the complaint were heard on 01.08.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 07.08.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)             

  President

 

 

(Inder Jit)          

 Member