Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Ifb

  1. #1
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,013

    Default Ifb

    ORDER


    COMPLAINT FILED: 31.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 07th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.2864/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri.Lalmon C. Kurian,Villa No.149,Himagiri Meadows,Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 083.V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES


    1. The Manager,IFB Industrices Ltd.,Verna Industries,# L1, Verna,Goa – 403 722.2. The Manager,IFB Industries Ltd.,16/17, Vishveswaryiah Industrial Estate,Mahadevapura Post,Bangalore – 48.Advocate – Sri.Vinod Kumar B.N


    O R D E R

    This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.90,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased a Digital Washing Machine from OP in the month of May 2007 for a total cost of Rs.24,000/-.
    It had a warranty but within six months from the date of purchase complainant experienced certain problems with the said washing machine. Though he made repeated requests and demands to OP the said problems, defects are not detected and cured to his satisfaction. Now the said machine has become useless. He was made to move from pillar to post to redress his grievance thereby he suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to get defect free washing machine he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.



    2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant was not handling the washing machine as per user’s manual and instructions given therein. He used to overload the machine due to which the motor was damaged. On the receipt of the complaint from OP, OP.2 deputed the technical person to examine the said washing machine and they are prepared to repair it to the satisfaction of the complainant even by replacing some spare parts because the said defects noticed in warranty period. But complainant was not available at the residence, as he has left to abroad. No fault lies with the OP. There is a delay in repairing the said washing machine because of the non availability of the complainant and due to his non co-operation. OP is still ready to repair washing machine including the replacement of the spare parts if so required. The other allegations of the complainant are all baseless. OP is neither obliged to replace the said washing machine nor pay the compensation. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.


    3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.


    4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
    Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
    Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
    Point No. 3 :- To what Order?

    5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
    Point No.1:- In Affirmative
    Point No.2:- Affirmative in part


    Point No.3:- As per final

    Order.


    R E A S O N S

    6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one washing machine from OP in the month of May 2007 for a valid consideration of Rs.24,000/- having a warranty. It is also not at dispute that complainant experienced some problem with the said Washing Machine within 6 months from the date of purchase. He immediately contacted the OP. OP Engineer examined the said machine and confirmed the defect in the manufacture but thereafter also in spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP neither repaired the said washing machine nor replaced it. Under such circumstances complainant is put to both mental agony and financial loss that too for no fault of his.


    7. As against this it is contended by the OP that there is some defect with the motor of the washing machine because of the over loading and not handling the said machine as per the user’s manual instructions. Of course OP did admit the fact of they having received the complaint from the complainant then deputed their technical Engineer who confirmed some defect with the said machine. According to OP they are prepared to detect the defect, cure the same and replace the spares if so required but complainant was not available at the residence when their Engineer went there. It is stated that complainant went abroad. Of course this fact is not denied by the complainant.



    8. On the over all examination of the defence set out by the OP it is made clear that OP admits the defects with the said machine and they have also undertaken that they are ready to repair the said washing machine including replacement of spare parts if so required. We find the approach of the OP is fair and bonafide. When the said machine can be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant there is no point in asking for the replacement. The other claim of the complainant that he has suffered monetary loss as such he is entitled for Rs.90,000/- compensation equivalent to the salary appears to be highly imaginary.



    9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as the OP has not attended to the said defects immediately naturally complainant suffered some inconvenience. Here we find the deficiency in service. As the OP has promised to detect the defect and cure the same complainant is not entitled for replacement of the said machine. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to rectify the said mistake and repair the said machine to the satisfaction of the complainant and replace some parts if so required free of cost and pay some litigation cost and token of compensation. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:


    O R D E R


    The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to repair the said washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the spares if so required within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and also pay a token of compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-.
    Regards,
    Admin,

    ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **

  2. #2
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,013

    Default Ifb

    Complainant:


    K.G. Naik
    277, 1st Floor, 52nd Cross
    7th Main, 4th Block
    Rajajinagar
    Bangalore- 560 010


    /vs/




    Opposite Parties:

    1.The Chief Executive
    IFB Industries Limited
    Plot No.IND-5, Sector1
    East Kolkata Township
    Kolkatta - 700 078

    2.The Branch Manager
    IFB Industries Limited
    16/17, Vishveswaraiah
    Industrial Estate
    Off White Field Road
    Mahadevapura Post
    Bangalore- 560 048
    (Local Office of IFB Industries Ltd.,)
    O R D E R



    SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:

    This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) for the refund of the amount of Rs.19,900/- with damages of Rs.50,000/-, costs and for such other reliefs.

    The brief facts of the case are that complainant bought a fully automatic front-loading IFB make “Elite” washing machine on 07/04/2007 from M/s. Balaji Electronics, No.23/A, 1st N Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10, an authorized dealer for IFB products. The washing machine was delivered to us on 08/04/2007. The washing machine has two years warranty, valid upto 07/04/2009. From the day the washing was first used, observed that the wash quality was not satisfactory and complainant lodged my first complaint on 14/05/2007, for unsatisfactory wash quality, on IFB’s toll free complaints telephone number 18604255678 and the complaint number is 905820. The complainants have lodged over 25 complaints with the Company over this telephone number so far. As the complaints were not attended to, he had to call numerous alternate numbers, and total calls made during the year is much beyond 1000. The telephone numbers called are 18604255678 (Complaints), 41277425, 18069908697, 9980019147, 09343706848, 9341490580, 9341929394, 30585164 etc., He also made written complaints to the Company on 20/05/2007, 02/02/2008 and 18/06/2008. The Company did not respond to any of these complaints till date.

    The washing machine Elite do not clean the clothes properly and the clothes have now acquired a coat of pale brown/pink colour, because of improper cleaning. The clothes are not getting rinsed properly and jeans pants do not even get soaked properly. At times he find muddy patches on the washed clothes. Now complainant forced to get white banians washes manually. As compared to earlier washing machines which he had used, in Elite he use special detergent power “Surf Excel Matic”, which is costlier, use hot water/prewash process, thus incurring higher electricity cost but the wash quality is much worse as compared to the earlier washing machines. In fact, representatives of IFB Industries Ltd., took the machine to their premises for repair on 23/07/2007 and returned it on 31/07/2007. The Company was not able to rectify the defect. They also did not adduce any reason for poor performance of the washing machine.

    The Branch Manager IFB Industries, Bangalore Mr. Raj, informed the complainant that the technology used in front loading is different from top loading and wash quality cannot be compared. Page 6 of the operating manual list out the advantages of tumble wash process, which is in use in the front loading washing machines, indicating that this is a superior technology. The front-lading washing machines, indicating that this is a superior technology. The float-lading washing machines are also priced more. However the wash quality, which he get, is much worse and unsatisfactory. The complainant had requested the Company by letter dated 18/06/2008, sent by Registered Post A/D, for full refund of the purchase price of Elite washing machine of Rs.19,900/- and take back the machine, which the Company did not act upon nor bothered to reply. The complainant suffered a lot at the hands of the Company, lost much valuable time in calling the Company and lodging numerous complaints, spent money on telephone calls, posts, higher electricity bills, under gone mental agony and physical labour to wash the clothes manually. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

    Ops appeared through their counsel, filed their version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Both parties submitted their written arguments and complainant produced one bermuda.

    The main contention of the complainant that the machine did not gave a satisfactory washing quality. The washed clothes become pale pink. The learned counsel for OP submitted that the question of wash quality is a matter of person satisfaction and it varies from person to person. The learned counsel further submitted that it is personal opinion of the complainant and he has not produced any prove or expert evidence. The material which was produced before this forum was not demonstrate before any other expert and the said material itself is an old one and the colour was also faddy for which washing machine can not be held responsible.

    It is not the case of the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the washing machine. The complainant has not produced any evidence of technician or expert before this forum to show that the clothes which were washed in the washing machine were not properly cleaning due to mistake in the washing machine. In the absence of specific evidence by the complainant it can not be held that there is defect in the washing machine. When we peruse the pleadings of the OP and the written arguments of learned counsel for OP they have clearly admitted that they are willing to repair the washing machine if there is a defect in it. But the complainant himself is not permitting them to inspect the machine.

    In view of the undertaking made by the OP, we are of the opinion and pass the following order.

    O R D E R

    Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to examine the washing machine and to rectify the defects if any on free of cost within 40 days from the date of this order.
    Regards,
    Admin,

    ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **

  3. #3
    Sadashiv Prem Guest

    Post Service complaint for IFB Dishwasher Neptune model- Complaint no. 3979135

    We are struggling very hard to get service at Mumbai for our dishwasher. Despite several complaints to IFB customer care and service centre, with numerous phone calls to their Customer Care, we are not getting our Dishwasher complaint addressed. Every time they say, the required spare part has not come and making odd excuses every time. The latest complaint is pending since 16.01.2010. However this problem started from Sept 2009. Some Control Board has got problems. What will one feel, if Rs. 28000 is spent on a Dishwasher and we are to call occasionally ‘BAI’ to wash the dishes, what a bad situation anf agony for us. We are constrained to post this complaintu to please help. Even the behavior of their service centre people at Mumbai is too rude and un-concerned, to tolerate. IFB like international company service will be so bad, I never thought. Please help us in getting our service copmlaint addressed by IFB.

  4. #4
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Service complaint for IFB Dishwasher Neptune model- Complaint no #4749624

    This is the same situation as reported by Mr. Sadashiv Prem!

    We are struggling very hard to get service at BANGALROE for our dishwasher. Despite several complaints to IFB customer care and service centre, with numerous phone calls to their Customer Care, we are not getting our Dishwasher complaint addressed. Please help us in getting our service copmlaint addressed by IFB.

    Thanks
    Kamal Jain

  5. #5
    Arman Khan Guest

    Thumbs up Your Regester Deler Distric Sikar Complan

    dear Sir,

    Your Distric Sikar In Delear Are Wrong so Please Contact Me 9024600420 or arman7283@gmail.com


    Quote Originally Posted by admin View Post
    ORDER



    COMPLAINT FILED: 31.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 07th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.2864/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri.Lalmon C. Kurian,Villa No.149,Himagiri Meadows,Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 083.V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES


    1. The Manager,IFB Industrices Ltd.,Verna Industries,# L1, Verna,Goa – 403 722.2. The Manager,IFB Industries Ltd.,16/17, Vishveswaryiah Industrial Estate,Mahadevapura Post,Bangalore – 48.Advocate – Sri.Vinod Kumar B.N


    O R D E R

    This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.90,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased a Digital Washing Machine from OP in the month of May 2007 for a total cost of Rs.24,000/-.
    It had a warranty but within six months from the date of purchase complainant experienced certain problems with the said washing machine. Though he made repeated requests and demands to OP the said problems, defects are not detected and cured to his satisfaction. Now the said machine has become useless. He was made to move from pillar to post to redress his grievance thereby he suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to get defect free washing machine he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.



    2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant was not handling the washing machine as per user’s manual and instructions given therein. He used to overload the machine due to which the motor was damaged. On the receipt of the complaint from OP, OP.2 deputed the technical person to examine the said washing machine and they are prepared to repair it to the satisfaction of the complainant even by replacing some spare parts because the said defects noticed in warranty period. But complainant was not available at the residence, as he has left to abroad. No fault lies with the OP. There is a delay in repairing the said washing machine because of the non availability of the complainant and due to his non co-operation. OP is still ready to repair washing machine including the replacement of the spare parts if so required. The other allegations of the complainant are all baseless. OP is neither obliged to replace the said washing machine nor pay the compensation. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.


    3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.


    4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
    Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
    Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
    Point No. 3 :- To what Order?

    5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
    Point No.1:- In Affirmative
    Point No.2:- Affirmative in part


    Point No.3:- As per final

    Order.


    R E A S O N S

    6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one washing machine from OP in the month of May 2007 for a valid consideration of Rs.24,000/- having a warranty. It is also not at dispute that complainant experienced some problem with the said Washing Machine within 6 months from the date of purchase. He immediately contacted the OP. OP Engineer examined the said machine and confirmed the defect in the manufacture but thereafter also in spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP neither repaired the said washing machine nor replaced it. Under such circumstances complainant is put to both mental agony and financial loss that too for no fault of his.


    7. As against this it is contended by the OP that there is some defect with the motor of the washing machine because of the over loading and not handling the said machine as per the user’s manual instructions. Of course OP did admit the fact of they having received the complaint from the complainant then deputed their technical Engineer who confirmed some defect with the said machine. According to OP they are prepared to detect the defect, cure the same and replace the spares if so required but complainant was not available at the residence when their Engineer went there. It is stated that complainant went abroad. Of course this fact is not denied by the complainant.



    8. On the over all examination of the defence set out by the OP it is made clear that OP admits the defects with the said machine and they have also undertaken that they are ready to repair the said washing machine including replacement of spare parts if so required. We find the approach of the OP is fair and bonafide. When the said machine can be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant there is no point in asking for the replacement. The other claim of the complainant that he has suffered monetary loss as such he is entitled for Rs.90,000/- compensation equivalent to the salary appears to be highly imaginary.



    9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as the OP has not attended to the said defects immediately naturally complainant suffered some inconvenience. Here we find the deficiency in service. As the OP has promised to detect the defect and cure the same complainant is not entitled for replacement of the said machine. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to rectify the said mistake and repair the said machine to the satisfaction of the complainant and replace some parts if so required free of cost and pay some litigation cost and token of compensation. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:


    O R D E R


    The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to repair the said washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the spares if so required within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and also pay a token of compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-.

  6. #6
    kello991 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I have a request to all the people who are going to read this review. Please spread this information to as many people as you can so that we can try to put an end to this menace. I have been having terrible
    service problems from IFB and only recently I found out why their service sucks. Apparently when you open a complaint, they come and check and get the form signed by you. They dont ask you to fill the form, but they go back and fill the form by themselves which claims to have replaced several parts and get money from the company and close the complaint. So the next time when you call, they avoid fixing the problem since they cannot replace the same part twice and ask the company to pay for it.

    next time you sign the form, please fill it completely by yourself stating exactly what the service people did. This will ensure you get better service eventually. If the complaint has been closed without your signature, then the only way that could have been done is if they have forged your signature.

  7. #7
    Himagiri is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Try highly rated mobile apps and games for free?
    Yes/No.

    Irrespective of your answer, it just opens browser for a second and prompts a sms as per below form AD-54321.
    Thanks for downloading Java Game from Airtel. You have been charged Rs 99.

    It is happening for many people. So many of them loosing their money because of this.

    It is happening for me Since August 20,2011. I am hereby giving details of 4days information.

    Date Amount deducted from my balance in Rupees
    9/12/2011 95
    10/12/2011 95
    10/12/2011 2
    12/12/2011 99
    13/12/2011 99
    13/12/2011 99
    14/12/2011 85

  8. #8
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Microwave not working... raised a complaint and there is no reply.

    Was given soo many numbers to follow up but none responsible to take it up..More than a week now. The worst ever service from any product comapny..
    Will never opt for IFB and will never recommend this to anyone.
    Complaint number is 10260041(9-feb-2013)

+ Submit Your Complaint

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •