Complainant Daizy @ Dipesh Arora through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to give new washing machine of same model to him or to refund the amount of the washing machine. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental tension etc. alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to him.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that opposite party no.1 is running the Autrhorized centre of IFB Industries Ltd and the opposite party no.2 is Managing Director of IFB Industries Ltd. On 08.02.2018,  he has purchased a washing machine having its model number Executive Plus VXID 85 Kg and one IFB Maxi Dryer model number Maxi Dry 550 from the opposite party no.1 vide cash Invoice bearing No.063 dated 08.02.2018 for Rs.61,980/- Only after 1 day from its purchase, when he started it, the washing machine started wobbling. Thereafter, he immediately visited at the office of opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 lingered upon the matter till the month of May,2018.  Thereafter, due to his repeated requests the opposite party no.1 gave a contact number i.e. 9468187431 belonging to Mr.Mohit Pathania Assistant Sales Manager on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The said Mohit Pathania visited at his address and he gave the number i.e. 8437381188 belonging to Technical Head. The abovesaid technical head enquired about the washing machine and recommended for the changing of washing machine on behalf of the opposite party no.2. He has next pleaded that opposite party no.1 changed the washing machine but when he again started the abovesaid washing machine the same was having the same problem. He again reported that matter to the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 allured that the surface of the floor is not plain and asked to make the iron stand   for washing machine and he prepared the same, but the problem was remained in the washing machine. He again reported the opposite parties and they linger upon the matter on the one pretext or the other. Thereafter due to the problem of wobbling, the washing machine fell down and resultantly the washing machine broke down.  Thereafter he did not adhere with his genuine requests. He clicked the photographs of the washing machine and also prepared the video footage of the running washing machine. He again requested the opposite parties to change the washing machine but they flatly refused his genuine requests. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notices issued to the opposite parties had not been received back. Case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite parties. Hence, opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.2.2019        

4.    Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of bill dated 8.2.2018 Ex.C-2, photographs Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 and C.D. Ex.C-6. 

5.       On perusing the file minutely the picture made out is that the complainant purchased one washing machine on 8.2.2018 having Model number Executive Plus VXID 85 Kg from opposite party no.1 vide cash invoice No.063 for Rs.61,980/- placed as Ex.C-2 on the file. As per version of complainant only 1 day after the purchase of machine, it started wobbling and complainant immediately visited the office of opposite party no.1 but opposite party no.1 lingered the matter on the pretext or the other till May 2018. After repeated requests opposite party no.1 gave a contact No.9468187431 of Mr.Mohit Pathania, Assistant Sales Manager on behalf of opposite party no.2 who visited the place of complainant and gave the mobile No.8437381188 belonging to the Technical Head of the opposite party company who after enquiring about the washing machine recommended for changing the washing machine on behalf of opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.1 changed it with a new washing machine but this was also having the same problem of wobbling. The complainant again approached opposite party no.1 for the same defect who allured that complainant should prepare an iron stand for the machine as the surface of the floor is not plain. On this allurement complainant got prepared the iron stand and put the machine on this stand but the problem of wobbling was not resolved and one day due to this wobbling the machine fell down and broke down. Complainant is forced to file this complaint as opposite party no.1 and did nothing to resolve this issue.

6.       Complainant has produced photographs of the broken machine alongwith a video CD of the running machine and making wobbling.

7.         As the opposite parties have not bothered to appear in the Forum and plead their case, we have no option but to consider the version of complainant only. On carefully watching the video attached as Ex.C-6, it is clearly made out that machine is working normally and making some wobbling but that is a natural process while the working of automatic washing machine. Otherwise the working of machine is normal.

8.       Otherwise even if we consider the version as put forth by complainant, even then, the complainant has not produced any document to prove whether there was any manufacturing defect in the machine. If he had made conversation with the technical head then she should have placed some proof as a print out of call details or the chat should have been produced in print. Because the opposite party company is not a local small manufacture of machine. It is an international brand and any complaint is dealt through proper procedures on customer care. The complainant has not produced any E-mail or SMS proving the defect in the washing machine. Admittedly the machine is replaced once. Now complainant has not succeeded in proving any defect in the machine. In Ex.C-6 which is a video coverage of the working of washing machine, it is not clear that who is inspecting or attending the machine? So, this video is not sufficient to prove any kind of manufacturing defect in the machine. Again complainant has not produced any kind of expert evidence of any mechanic or service engineer who has inspected the machine and given report about the manufacturing defect.

9.       From above discussion, we observe that complainant himself has failed to prove his complaint and we have no earthly ground to believe his exparte pleadings and evidence. So, accordingly we hold that complainant is not entitled for any relief in the absence of proper expert evidence. This complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.         Copy of the orders be issued to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record. Announced in open Forum. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

 ANNOUNCED:               (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

April 22, 2019.                       Member                         Presiding Member

 MK