Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/247

Sunita Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Manan Berry

17 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  247 dated 19.10.2020.                                       Date of decision: 17.12.2024. 

 

Sunita Sharma, aged about 56 years, Wife of Late Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, Resident of House No.121, K.V.M. Colony, Ashok Vihar, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.                                                                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. IFB Industries Ltd. through its Director, IFB Industries Ltd., 14, Taratolla Road, Kolkata, India.
2. Bijon Nag, Chairman Cum Director, IFB Industries Ltd., Home Appliances Division, L-1, Verna Electronics City, Verna Salcete, Goa, India.
3. Bikramjeet Singh, Joint Executive Chairman and Managing Director, IFB Industries Ltd., 2, Plot No.Ind-5, Sector-1, East Kolkata, Kolkata, India.
4. The Concerned Officer, Plot No.640 A, Industrial Area, Phase-9, Mohali, Punjab, India.
5. Gaurav Bansal, Sales Head, Ludhiana Branch, Village Threekay (Outside Octroi) C/o. Baldev Warehousing Complex, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
6. Rajnish, Service Head, Plot No.640 A, Industrial Area, Phase-9, Mohali, Punjab, India.
7. Aman Sharma, Service Department, Village Threekay (Outside Octroi) C/o. Baldev Warehousing Complex, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
8. Rishabh Garg, IFB Point Manager, Shop No.XX, 2707, Navrang Building, Opposite Nehru Sidhant Kendra, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.                                                                              …..Opposite parties 

Complaint U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protect Act 2019 (As amended till now) for holding the opposite parties for deficiency and negligency in services.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Manan Berry, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         None.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that on 26.12.2019, the complainant along with her son namely Madhur Sharma went to IFB Point to purchase one IFB Turbo Dry (hereinafter called as ‘Product’) for the winter season where OP8 represented them that the product is made specifically for winter and rainy season. Believing the representation ofOP8, the complainant purchased IFB Turbo Dry from IFB Point, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana for Rs.18,000/- vide receipt No.1839 dated 26.12.2019, which was financed by HDFC Bank Credit Card of her son. The product was delivered through IFB Warehouse on 01.01.2020. The complainant stated that on 27.01.2020, she started using the product and put clothes in it but all the expensive clothes put by her got burnt, torn and damaged. She immediately sent images of burnt clothes via whatsapp through mobile number of her son i.e. 75892-00061 to OP8 and grievance mail on official Email of the OPs. On 28.01.2020, the complainant received mail from customer service department of OPs vide which they regretted the inconvenience caused to her and assured to escalate her concern to branch office to attend the same at earliest. The complainant further stated that two executives/technicians from the OPs came to her house and inspected the product and instructed her not to use the product as it is a faulty product and has manufacturing defect. Further if she or her family will use the product then it might be possible that again clothes will burn and get damaged. The executives/technicians of the OPs also assured the complainant to send a recommendation for exchanging the faulty product and to pay an adequate compensation to the complainant. Even they got signatures of the complainant on some blank forms on the pretext to fill up the details later on and assured her to send the same to head office as well as branch office of the OPs. The complainant approached the OP many times and their employees assured to do the needful on priority basis. However, despite the responses and assurances of the executives/technicians of the OPs, her grievance was not addressed properly. The complainant further stated that on 11.02.2020, she sent an Email to the customer care service of the OPs and also sent Email dated 19.02.2020. Even when she approached the OP, she was given lame excuses that the Regional Sales Manager of the OP is out of country. Even she met Mr. Vibhor Sharma with request to resolve her grievance but no heed was paid to her request. The complainant sent several reminders through Emails on 03.03.2020, 07.03.2020, 20.03.2020, 28.03.2020 and 17.06.2020 but no response was received from the OPs.

                   The complainant further stated that on 17.06.2020 at around 05.30 PM her son Madhur Sharma along with his friend Puneet Sareen visited the branch office of OP at village Threekay, Ludhiana where they met Gaurav Bansal, Branch Head and requested him to resolve the issue by replacing the product and to pay compensation/damages due to loss of clothes to the tune of Rs.30,000/- but he did not pay any positive response to their request. Even Garuav Bansal used unethical and rough language for the complainant and her son. Thereafter, her son showed him the burnt clothes and all the Emails and follow ups sent by the complainant to the OPs upon which the Branch Head Gaurav Bansal gave false assurance and commitment of an amount of Rs.6000/- being compensation cheque and replacement of the product after two days after getting approval from head office and also assured to write and recommend her case to enhance adequate compensation. But no further response was received. The complainant further stated that on 22.06.2020, her son sent an Email mentioning about the conversation of Gaurav Bansal with him. According to the complainant, she faced harassment due to act and conduct of the OPs. She sent legal notice dated 23.06.2020 through her counsel Sh. Gagan Oberoi, Advocate to the OPs  but no reply was received. She also sent legal notice through speed post and also via electronic mode i.e. through whatsapp to the concerned employees of the OPs on 27.06.2020. Even she also sent email dated 18.06.2020 to OP1 and OP2. The complainant further stated that she moved a complaint to National Consumer Helpline on 19.07.2020 which was disposed of on 08.09.2020 with direction to her that if the complainant is not satisfied with the OP’s response, she is at liberty to approach District Consumer Commission. The complainant again sent Email dated 28.08.2020 and 31.08.2020 to the OPs but to no effect. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to refund Rs.18,000/- for the faulty product along with loss Rs.30,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP1 and OP4 appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability; the complainant has not approached with clean hands; concealment of material facts; the complaint being filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to extract money; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; the complaint is an abuse of process of law etc. OP1 and OP4 stated that the complainant had prayed for the refund of price, interest thereupon and compensation etc. which is beyond the warranty terms. The manufacturer of the said product had extended LIMITED WARRANTY terms to the complainant. OP1 and OP4 further stated that the complainant has not suffered from any of the losses for which she is praying for the compensation and or mental agony etc. The appliance is being utilized by the complainant regularly from the date of its purchase. The IFB Dryer of the complainant is out of the limited warranty terms extended by the manufacturer. The relevant recommendations detailed in the Operation Manual delivered to the Complainant with the appliance are reproduced as under:-

A) Remove everything from pockets.

B) Close zippers, hooks and strings

C) Wrap clothing that has not been spun dried

D) For best results, sort the laundry according to fabric types. Heavy garments such as towels, flannels etc. Take longer to dry and should be sorted from garments such as terry cotton, polyester etc.

E) Check and remove any small articles or any laundry items left inside the drum or on the rubber gasket.

F) Do not overload the clothes dryer. This posses the risk of creasing, increase drying time and reduces efficiency. Also, never load dripping wet clothes in the clothes dryer as it may lead to electric shocks or damage to components.

PROGRAM:-

COTTON REGULAR/Mixed load

Heavier items such as towels and flannel blankets.

Synthetic/Delicates:-

Delicate fabrics prone to shrinkage such as lingerie, synthesis etc.

G) Select the drying time by turning the time dial clockwise.

H)  Drying time depends on fabric type, size, weight and wetness. Spin dry your laundry in a washing machine to reduce drying time.

I)  A temperature activated safety cut-off device protects the clothes dryer from overheating. A safety reset switch located near the door latch activates the safety device.

J) Woolens should not be tumble but pulled to their original shape and dried flat.

K) Clothes or towels soiled with sand or grit should be washed to remove the particles before being place in the clothes dryer.

L) Some woven and look knit fabrics tend to shrink by varying amounts depending on their size. Do not use the Regular setting for these garments and always stretch them out immediately after drying.

M) Do not overload the clothes dryer. To reduce wrinkles remove permanent press articles as soon.

N) Items made of rubber or plastic such as aprons, bibs, tablecloths, chair covers, curtains etc. should not be dried in the clothes dryer.

Even for consultation Drying guide of various fabrics was given. According to OP1 and OP4, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

                   On merits, OP1 and OP4 reiterated the crux of averments made in preliminary objections. OP1 and OP4 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                However instead of filing written statement, OP2, OP3 and OP5 to OP8 filed application for deletion of their name from the array of the OPs to which reply was filed by the complainant and the said application was kept for consideration.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C28 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs failed to adduce any evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities including last and final chance and imposition of costs of Rs.500/-. As such, evidence of the OPs was closed vide order dated 21.11.2024.

6.                None turned up for the OPs today also. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents as well as written statement produced on record by both parties. We proceed to decide the case on merits.        

7.                OP1, is a manufacturer of the product while OP2 and OP2 are its Chairman cum Director and Joint Executive Chairman cum Managing Director respectively. OP4 to OP7 are the representatives of OP1 in the department of sales and service while OP8 is the seller of the product.

8.                Legally speaking, OP1 is the product manufacturer, OP8 is the product seller and OP6 and OP7 are the product service providers within the meaning of Sections 2(36), 2(37) and 2(38) of Consumer Protection Act respectively. The complainant being a purchaser of IFB Turbo Dryer has also invoked the product liability action against the OPs as the clothes got burnt on and damaged while using the product within one month of date of purchase of the product. In fact, on 26.12.2019, the complainant and her son were prevailed upon by OP8 to buy this product exclusively meant for drying purpose in winter and rainy season. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.18,000/- and the product was delivered on 01.01.2020. After installation, when the complainant started using the product on 27.01.2020, the clothes under process of drying got burnt and damaged. The matter was immediately brought to the notice of the OPs vide Emails and whatsapp messages along with photographs of damaged clothes. The OPs responded to the said Emails and even two technicians visited the house of the complainant but nothing concrete was done to rectify the defect or to make good the losses suffered by the complainant. Thereafter, from 11.02.2020 onwards till 31.08.2020 Ex. C6 to Ex. C15 and Ex. C18 to Ex. C28, the complainant and her son sent Emails/reminders to the OPs. Even legal notice dated 23.06.2020 Ex. C16 was also sent to the OPs but only on 31.08.2020 a stereotype response was sent by the OPs vide Email Ex. C28. According to the complainant, the product remained non-functional and it was not fit to use since first instance. The product was neither replaced nor rectified and all the representations of the complainant failed to yield desired result. The OPs were under legal obligation to withdraw the defective goods or to refund the consideration received. Non-action on their part amounts to refusal to discharge the legal obligation. Although the OPs in their written version have referred to documents i.e. warranty terms and consultation drying guide of various fabrics including using dryer, loading instructions, drying guide, manufacturer recommendations but none of these documents was the part of the written statement and nor it was presented before this Commission for its scrutiny and appraisal.

9.                Though Section 2 (47) (viii) of the Consumer Protection Act elaborates the unfair trade practice in suchlike cases, which is reproduced as under:-

“2 (47) ‘unfair trade practice’ means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-

(viii) refusing, after selling goods or rendering services, to take back or withdraw defective goods or to withdraw or discontinue deficient services and to refund the consideration thereof, if paid, within the period stipulated in the bill or cash memo or receipt or in the absence of such stipulation, within a period of thirty days”

Therefore, the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice and rendering of deficient services and they have also caused harm/damage to the clothes of the complainant. As such, in our considered view, it would be just and appropriate if the complainant will hand over the product i.e. IFB Turbo Dry to the OPs at their local office at Ludhiana within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, OP1, OP4 and OP8 shall jointly and severally refund the invoice value of product of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of product form the complainant along with composite costs of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of damage to the clothes, litigation expenses and compensation. The complaint qua remaining OP2, OP3, OP5, OP6 and OP7 deserves dismissal.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the complainant will hand over the product i.e. IFB Turbo Dry to the OPs at their local office at Ludhiana within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, OP1, OP4 and OP8 shall jointly and severally refund the invoice value of product of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of product form the complainant, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order till date of actual payment. OP1, OP4 and OP8 jointly and severally shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant on account of damage to the clothes, litigation expenses and compensation. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. However, the complaint qua remaining OP2, OP3, OP5, OP6 and OP7 is hereby dismissed. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.12.2024.

Gobind Ram.