Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/655

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh adv

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 655 dated 29.10.2018                                                         Date of decision: 12.04.2022.

                                                         

1. Ravinder Singh S/o. Harnek Singh, R/o. Village Rattowal, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana.
2. Baljinder Kaur W/o. Ravinder Singh, R/o. Village Rattowal, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainants

                                                Versus

1. IFB Electronics Company, 44, Model Town, Main Market Road, Ludhiana through its Manager/Director.
2. Benson Electronics, Opposite Indian Overseas Bank, Raikot Road, Sudhar, District Ludhiana through its Proprietor/authorized signatory Sh. Iqbal Singh.

…..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Swarajpal Sooden, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that they purchased one IFB washing machine model No.TL-SDG 9.5 KG from OP1 vide invoice No.132 dated 20.11.2017 for a sum of Rs.34,000/-. After sometime of purchase, the washing machine started giving problems. It would stop in between. The complainant contacted OP2 on mobile No.99881-39354 and 98780-37061 following which one mechanic namely Jagmit Singh came and repaired the machine. However, after some days, the machine again started giving same trouble as it would stop in between the cycle. The complainant again contacted OP2 who had also issued a warranty/guaranty card but this time OP2 flatly refused to repair the machine. The complainant called head office of IFB and he was asked to contact OP2. Thereafter, OP1 sent a mechanic for repair on 03.10.2018 to repair the water leaking problem from the bottom of the machine. Few days after the repairs, it again stopped working and started leaking from the bottom. On 16.10.2018, another mechanic namely Sunil Sharma visited to check faults in the machine. He was explained that the machine stopped during in between the cycle of washing and was not in working condition. On the same day, the complainants went to the shop of OP2 and when OP2 was told about the recurring problems in the machine, he lost his cool and insulted the complainants who were at that time accompanied by their son. In this manner, the complainants have suffered a great deal due to act and conduct of the OPs which amounts to deficiency of service. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the machine and be also made to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, OP2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and further that the complainants have suppressed the material facts while filing the present complaint. Apart from that, the complainants have not furnished any expert evidence to prove the so called manufacturing defects in the washing machine. Moreover, the complaint as against OP1 is not maintainable as the product was not purchased from OP1. According to OP1, as per owner’s manual, the complainant was under an obligation to lodge an email or toll free number of OP1 to avail after sale service but no request was received by OP1 at any point of time. OP1 has further pleaded that the appliance is not defective. Rather the same is in working condition and the complainants have been regularly utilizing the same. According to OP1, pausing of appliance while changing the circle from clockwise to anticlockwise, the washing machine has to pause for a while due technical reason. OP1 has further pleaded that on 03.10.2018, a request of the complainants was received upon which ticket No.1002158401 was generated and a technician was deputed to visit the house of the complainants. During the inspection, the filter of washing machine was lying blocked due to dust/sand. The filter was cleaned and washing machine was demonstrated to be in perfect condition. On receipt of another complaint from the complainants on 16.10.2018, the same technician again visited the house of complainant No.1 and it was explained to the complainants that the pause in between was not a defect but was required for optimum utilization of the appliance. The machine does not stop working while changing the circle rather the pausing is due to technical reason. Therefore, there was no defect in the appliance. The job card Ex. P5 is self explanatory.  The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant No.1 submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA and affidavit Ex. CB of complainant No.2 Smt. Baljinder Kaur along with documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P7and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Anil Kumar Johri along with document Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainants has argued that the machine carried a warranty of 2 years but it was a defective machine right from the very beginning. The counsel for the complainants has further contended that the machine would halfway in between the cycle of washing and also had a problem of leaking at the bottom and, therefore, the OPs are under an obligation to replace the same or refund the cost of machine to the complainants.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 has argued that the complaint is false and frivolous and deserves to be dismissed as no expert evidence of any defect in the machine has been proved on record by the complainants.

9.                Having heard the counsel for the parties and after going through the record, we are of the view that in this case the grievance of the complainants is that the machine purchased by the complainants would stopped in between the cycle. On the contrary, OP1 has categorically stated in para no.4 of the written statement on merits that the appliance is not defective and the same is in working condition and further that the pausing of the machine is due to changing the circle from clockwise to anticlockwise for which the machine has to pause for a while due to technical reason. This part of the written statement has not been controverted by the complainants a no rejoinder or replication has been filed by the complainants. Besides it is a matter of common knowledge that an automatic washing machine works like its only as the same paused for a while changing its cycle from clockwise to anticlockwise. Moreover, to prove any manufacturing defect, the complainants have not examined any expert witness or an engineer who could say there was a manufacturing defect in the machine. The complainants have placed on record a job card Ex. P5 which proves that the complaint was lodged with OP1 regarding some problem in the machine. It is evident from the job sheet Ex. P5 that following the complaint, Engineer Sahil Sharma visited the complainants and repaired the machine. In the job sheet ex. P5, it is mentioned that there was a problem of water leaking from the bottom of the machine which was rectified. OP1 has further placed on record another job card Ex. OP1/1 dated 03.10.2018. In the job card Ex. OP1/1 also, it is mentioned that the inlet filter blocked due to sand and under the column of action taken, it is further mentioned that ‘inlet filter was cleaned and machine was working OK’. Thus, from the evidence on record, the complainants have failed to prove that there was some manufacturing defect in the machine which might warrant replacement of the same or refund of the cost of the machine.

10.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The complainant shall be at liberty to file a separate claim in civil court if permitted under law. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Ravinder Singh etc. Vs IFB                                                      CC/18/655

Present:       Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. Swarajpal Sooden, Advocate for OP1.

                   OP2 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.