Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/202/2018

Sunil Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Sh J.D Bansal

04 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                              Complaint No.  RBT/CC/202/2018

   Instituted on:    04.06.2018

                                                               Decided on:     04.10.2022

 

Sunil Goyal @ Sunil Kumar aged 51 years, son of Sh. Baldev Krishan, resident of House No.B-23/295, Nabha Gate, Shiv Mandir, Patiala.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

      1.     Garg Sales, Jourian Bhattian, Patiala through its Proprietor Mr. Vipan Garg.

2.  Whirlpool Service Centre, Near Balaji Distributor, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala through its Manager/authorized person.
3. Whirlpool of India Pvt. Ltd. Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurugram 122 002 Haryana.

             ….Opposite parties

For complainant         : Shri J.D.Bansal, Adv.              

For OP 1&2               : Exparte.

For OP No.3.             : Shri Sunil Kumar Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :    MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.        

1.             Arguments through video conferencing heard. This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that he availed the services of the OPs by purchasing one fully automatic washing machine on 9.6.2016 for Rs.23,000/- vide bill number 44487 dated 9.6.2016 which was having two years warranty/guarantee. The washing machine in question was installed by OP number 2. The grievance of the complainant is that after sometimes the machine in question stopped working as the washing of the machine was not upto mark, as such the complainant approached OP number 1 and lodged the complaint, but of no avail.  Thereafter the complainant got registered complaints with the OPs on various occasions but of no avail. As such the complainant even requested the OPs to make refund of the cost of the machine in question, but the OPs refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the washing machine in question with a new one or to refund its price and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as  compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. The complaint of the complainant was attended properly. On merits, the sale and purchase of the machine is admitted.  The OP has stated further in the reply that the complaints were sorted out by the OP and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs  as the complainant himself refused to bring the machine to the service centre.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             Record shows that the OPs number 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.

5.             The complainant has produced Ex.C-A affidavit and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and closed evidence. Similarly, OP number 3 produced Ex.OP-A affidavit of Neeraj Mehta and Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 copies of job sheets and closed evidence.

6.             A bare perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has purchased the machine in question vide bill Ex.C-1 on 9.6.2016 which was having two years warranty on the complete washing machine meaning thereby the machine in question was under warranty upto 9.6.2018 and the present complaint was filed on 4.6.2018, as such we find that the complainant has filed the present complaint within the warranty period, more so when the machine in question suffered defects on various occasions. Ex.C-2 is the copy of warranty registration card for the machine in question which clearly reveals that the machine in question is under warranty for two years from the date of original purchase. Ex.C-3 is the copy of messages sent by the OP. All the allegations are also corroborated by the affidavit of complainant, which is on record Ex.C-A.  On the other hand,  the OPs have produced Ex.OP-A affidavit of Shri Neeraj Mehta, wherein it has been stated that the complaints of the complainant were duly attended by the complainant.  Ex.OP-1 is the copy of job sheet wherein it has been stated that the customer refused to repair  and Ex.OP-2 is again copy of job sheet wherein it has been stated that TSP drive assy and drive hub changed, Ex.OP-3 is again copy of job sheet wherein it has been stated that the customer don’t send the machine in workshop and on the Ex.OP-4, it has been stated that brake wire adjust and scalgone sale…  It is worth mentioning here that all this evidence of the OPs clearly reveals that the machine in question was defective one as the complainant approached the OPs so many times to get the washing machine repaired on so many occasions, but OPs failed to set it right properly and the complainant had to file the present complaint. It is settled law that the if OP fails to set right the machine/instrument despite so many repairs, as such, it requires to be replaced with a new one or to refund its price.  In the circumstances, we feel that the same analogy requires to be implemented in the present case. We further find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs either to replace the washing machine in question with a new one or to refund its price i.e. Rs.23000/-. In case the OPs refund the amount then the complainant shall be liable to hand over the old defective washing machine to the OPs at the time of getting the refund of the amount.  We further direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- being the consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

8.             This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

9.             This order be complied with wihtina  period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                October 4, 2022.

 

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member                                          President