Haryana

Panchkula

CC/610/2019

RAM KARAN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

WALIA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

25 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	610 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	11.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	25.05.2022

 

 

Ram Karan son of Sh. Ronki Ram, resident of Village Rattewali, Tehsil and District Panchkula

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Walia Enterprises, IDEA Tower, Chandigarh Road, Raipur Rani, Tehsil and District Panchkula through its Prop.

2.     I.F.B.Indusries Ltd. Industry Compound, Near Devi Lal Chowk, By-Pass Road, Karnal through its authorized signatory.

                                                                                       ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person,

                        OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 08.01.2020.

                        Sh. Anshul Kukerja, Advocate for the OP no.2.

 

                                        ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a IFB washing machine Model TL65 RCG. Sr.No.021015150605003059 on 20.12.2015 from the OP No.1 after paying a consideration amount of Rs.21,600/- vide bill no.14540 with four years warranty. The said washing machine carry a warranty of two year from the date of purchase. When the complainant installed the said washing machine, it started giving electric shocks. The complainant brought about the said defect into the knowledge of the OP No.1. On the advice of OP No.1, the complainant got lodged his complaint online with OP No.2 on 24.12.2015, 30.12.2015, 30.01.2016 & 13.04.2016 vide ticket nos.17139314, 17175927, 17328041 and 17672161 respectively but none has come from the OP No.2 to visit the house of the complainant. However, a message was received by him from OP No.2 on 26.12.2016, 23.01.2016 and 22.04.2016 that the complaint of the complainant has been resolved. Having no option, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Upon notice, the OPs appeared and assured to rectify the defects in the said machine, without any charges as there is four year warranty on the products. On the assurances, the complainant had withdrawn the said complaint with the liberty to file afresh vide order dated 26.10.2016. Thereafter, the team of engineers of the OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and rectified the defect in the said machine. Thereafter, the minor defects occurred in the said washing machine and the officials of the OP no.2 visited the house of the complainant and rectified the defects.  In the month of March, 2019, the said washing machine started giving troubles and the officials of the OP No.2, namely, Sh.Sushil Verma has come and rectified the defects and demanded  an amount of Rs.2,850/- as repair charges. The complainant under the compelled circumstances paid the said amount through Google pay. Thereafter, again the machine started giving problem in the month of October, 2019, and upon lodging complaint, Sh.Sandeep, engineer came and checked the machine and charged an amount of Rs.590/- as service charges and disclosed that the repair charges of the said machine is Rs.10,000/- because some defective part  is to be replaced; upon this, the complainant said that the washing machine was under warranty but the official of the OP No.2 refused to repair it without charges. Due to the above said act and conduct on the part of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental and physical agony, financial loss and harassment. The OPs have also committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; hence, the present complaint.  

2.             Notice was issued through registered post vide registered post No.CH072433037IN on 21.11.2019 to OP No.1, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP No.1; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Op No.1, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide order dated 08.01.2020.

                Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; time barred; complainant has not come with clean hands; suppressed the material facts. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had purchased the said appliance on 20.12.2015 from OP No.1. The OP No.1 had delivered owner’s manual booklet to the complainant at the time of delivery of the washing machine. The OP No.1 is not competent to extend any other warranty over the appliance except the warranty policy as detailed in the owner’s manual booklet. The appliance in question is coming with two years warranty.  In earlier complaint, the complainant had categorically stated that the warranty was for two years. The washing machine was carrying two years warranty from the date of its purchase. It is also submitted that the washing machine was installed at the house of the complainant on 24.12.2015 by the technician of the OP no.2. During inspection, it was noted that there was no earthing in the house of the complainant. The technician of the OP No.2 checked electrical supply with the help of Electronic Multimeter at the house of the complainant. The 16-amp electrical socket from where the electricity supply was connected to the appliance was checked and it was detected that there was earthing problem in the socket connecting electrical supply to the appliance. As per safety caution mentioned in the clause no.3 of the Owner’s manual, it was obligatory on the complainant to complete the effective earthing system. The manufacturer cannot be held responsible for the consequences of an inadequate earthing system.  The complainant has not lodged any complaint with the OP No.2 on 24.12.2015 but it received request for installation of the washing machine. Accordingly, the technician of the OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant on 24.1.2015 and installed the appliance. Again another request was received from him on 30.12.2015. On the same date, the technician of the OP No.2 visited and re-demonstration of the appliance was given to the complainant. Again, the complainant was advised that there were no manufacturing defects in the appliance and the appliance required earthing in order to avoid mild electric shock. The complainant was asked to either shift the appliance to some other place having proper earthing or to check the performance of the appliance at the place where there was proper earthing system. However, the complainant has not co-operated with the OP no.2 and made another request on 13.04.2016 for further inspection of the appliance. The request of the complainant was properly attended but he was not ready for the effective earthing system. The appliance is not suffering from the manufacturing defects. It is further stated that the warranty over the product of the complainant had expired on 23.12.2017. The complainant had produced incomplete fake document at page number 14(Annexure C-4) of the paper book, which is not related to the model of washing machine preferred to be purchased by the complainant. The said document was not delivered with the appliance to him. Neither the machine requires replacement of parts worth of Rs.10,000/- nor the official of the OP no.2 had demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant.    So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade of practice on the part of OP No 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             Replication to the written statements of the OP was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OP.

4.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-2/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/8 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and gone through the entire record, minutely and carefully.

 6.            It is not in dispute that the complaint had purchased a washing machine from OP No.1 on 20.12.2015 vide bill no.14540 amounting to Rs.21,600/-. In the present complaint, the replacement of the washing machine with new one or the refund of its cost price amounting to Rs.21,600/- or the repair of the washing machine without any charges, has been claimed on the ground that there is a manufacturing defect in the said machine, which could not be rectified by the OPs despite several visits  of its technical persons. It is contended that one representative of OP No.2, namely, Sh. Sushil Verma had wrongly charged a sum of Rs.2,850/- as repair charges from him in the month of March, 2019 and thereafter, a sum of Rs.590/- was charged as service charges by one person, namely, Sh.Sandeep engineer on behalf of the OP No.2 in the month of October, 2019. It is further contended that the machine is under warranty and thus, the OPs are liable to replace the machine or to repair it without any charges.

7.             The OP No.2 has contested the complaint by filing the written statement, by raising preliminary objections therein as well as on merits. As per preliminary objections, it is contended that the complaint is time barred as the washing machine was purchased on 20.12.2015, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 08.11.2019 i.e. after a period of approximately 3 years 11 months. The learned counsel contended that the complainant has suppressed several materials facts in the present complaint. It is contended that in the earlier complaint case no.115 of 2016, it was specifically alleged by the complainant that the washing machine had a warranty of 2 years. It is also contended that during the pendency of earlier complaint, the machine was got jointly inspected vide its expert, who had found no manufacturing defect in it. It is contended that the washing machine in question was never promised to have a warranty of 4 years. It is contended that the complainant was requested vide application dated 08.01.2020 for production of original documents i.e. warranty terms but the same were not produced by him.

8.             We have perused the averments made in the earlier complaint no.115 of 2016, wherein it was specifically averred that the machine in question had a warranty of two years. Having perused the entire record available on file in the earlier complaint case no. 115 of 2016, we do not come across any such documents like Annexure C-4, wherein guarantee of 4 years was promised by the OPs. Further, we find a joint inspection report dated 06.9.2019(Annexure R-2/9) in the earlier complaint, wherein no manufacturing defect was pointed out in the machine. In the present complaint, the complainant has not disclosed that the machine was earlier checked and any joint inspection report like Annexure R-2/9 was given. In view of the fact that the washing machine had a warranty of two years instead of four years, no merit is found in the present complaint.

9.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no force and substance in the version of the complainant; hence, the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:25.05.2022

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg                          Satpal

                 Member                                    President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

   Satpal                                                

  President