Date of filing: 28.06.2018

Date of Judgment: 25.09.2020

Mr. Ayan Sinha, Hon’ble Member

            This is a complaint under Section 12 read with 13 of the C. P. Act 1986 made by Sri Dilip Singh, T/38 F Rly. Qtr., P.O.-Shyamnagar, Dist.-North 24 Parganas, PIN – 743127, against Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 3/13, S.K.Ali Road, Barrackpore, OPP. Barrackpore Rail Station, Kolkata- 700 120, P.S.-Barrackpore (OP No.1) and General Manager, IFB 14 No Taratala Road, P.S.-Taratala, Kolkata-700 088 (OP No.2), praying for direction upon OPs jointly and/or severally to refund Rs.25,000/- with 18% interest till the date of payment along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            FACTS IN BRIEF

            The Complainant purchased a washing machine vide invoice No.5424/1516/08839 dt.1.1.2016 with 4 years warranty by IFB CARE at a cost of Rs.25,000/- against which the Complainant paid Rs.8,380/- cash and the balance payment of Rs.16,640/- was made by Bajaj Finance Ltd. to the Company. As stated in the petition of complaint, the washing machine in question did not function from the date of purchase as he could not wash clothes or garments. After reporting several times to the OPs, the technicians were sent but failed to resolve the problem. The Complainant also informed over telephone to OP’s Head Office and lodged the complaint vide Docket No.T/No.-1000787473IFB dt.13.12.2017. The Complainant also stated in his petition of complaint that due to such deficiency of service o n the part of OPs, suffered huge loss and mental agony and also he had to pay EMI with high interest to the financer. It is also stated that the technicians of OPs verbally informed him that the washing machine in question is actually having manufacturing defect for which they are unable to solve the problem. Thus, the Complainant filed this complaint alleging the OPs that they have intentionally handed over second hand defective machine to the Complainant.

            The Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, invoice no.5424/1516/08839 dt.1.1.2016, copy of warranty card for four years, copy of letter sent to Consumer Grievance Cell dt.16.1.2018 and their reply dt.11.5.2018. Notices were served to both the OPs.

OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that they did not supply any damaged washing machine. OP No.1 has also stated after getting the complaint they forwarded to the company as they are only dealer and seller and is not liable to provide any damage of defective goods. OP No.1 strongly denied all allegations made against them by the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case with cost.

OP No.2 also contested the case by filing written version denying all the allegations made by the Complainant contending inter alia that the averments are frivolous and baseless since IFB is a reputed company and does not compromise with quality and functions performed by its manufactured products. They also stated in their written version that the washing machine in question was demonstrated in the year 2016 and was working perfectly and the Complainant being satisfied did not raise any kind of objection or dispute thereof. After two years i.e. on 13.12.2017, the Complainant lodged the complaint to IFB vide docket No.1000787473 dt.13.12.2017 against which their representatives scrutinized the machine and found was performing smoothly. OP No.2 also stated in their written version that prior to 13.12.2017, they had no knowledge about the dissatisfaction of the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost as the Complainant has filed the petition to profit out of litigation cost.

During the course of evidence, the Complainant and both the OPs adduced their respective evidence. The Complainant did not file any Affidavit-in-reply nor filed any questionnaire against both the OPs and finally the argument was advanced by both the parties.

OP No.1 has filed BNA.

Main points for determination

            (1) whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

            (2) whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

            Decision with reasons

            Point No.(1) and (2) : Both these points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion.

            In order to substantiate his claim , the Complainant has filed copy of invoice No.5424/1516/08839 dt.1.1.2016 showing purchase of IFB  make WM (as shown in the description column) for a price of Rs.25,000/- against which he has paid cash of Rs.8,360/- and balance of Rs.16,640/- through Finance. A copy of 4 years’ warranty card is also in record showing date of purchase as 1.1.2016 and so this is admitted fact that the washing machine was within the warranty period. Now the question is although the Complainant stated that the questioned washing machine was not functioning from the date of purchase, then why did the Complainant docket the complaint with IFB on 13.12.2017. OP No.1 stated in their written version para 10 that they forwarded the complaint to the company upon receipt of the same. So, there is no dispute that the Complainant was already following up with OP No.1 and when finally failed to resolve, the complaint was lodged with Docket dt.13.12.2017 with OP No.2. OP No.2 also admitted the same docket dt.13.12.2017.

            On perusal of the BNA of OP No.1, it appears OP No.1 has stated that the complaint did not allow the service engineer to work, but in written version of OP No.2 it is stated that the representatives of IFB attended and found working smoothly. The versions of OPs are contradictory. Moreover, the OPs have not filed any scrap of paper wherefrom it can be ascertained that the Complainant was satisfied with the demonstration and installation of the said washing machine. During argument, OP No.2 submitted verbally they are ready to replace the washing machine.

            In today’s situation, every consumer buying products with an expectation to satisfy his/her needs only and not keeping in view to make profit out of it by filing false complaints.

            In the instant petition, the Complainant has bought the washing machine from his hard earned money and also paying huge interest to the Finance Co. No scrap of paper filed by the OPs showing any initiatives taken by them to resolve the problem of washing machine by removing the defects or replacement for which the Complainant had to move Consumer Grievance Cell and there also the OPs did not appear. Thus, it can be easily understood the conduct of service of OPs.

            Even though the Complainant has prayed for refund and not replacement, a Consumer/Purchaser is entitled to the replacement of the parts as well as the product during the warranty period. Since OP No.2 put their submission verbally to replace, so refund of the purchase as claimed by the Complainant will be going beyond the terms and conditions and thus cannot be allowed. OP No.1 has stated that they are dealer and seller and is not liable for any defects of the machine but there cannot be any denial or dispute that the dealers also have certain responsibilities towards the customers to see that the products received for sale is in good condition and as such they cannot shirk off their responsibilities, whey they also earn money to sell the product.

            So, we hold there is certainly a deficiency of service on the part of OPs and the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.

            Point No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

            Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- which are both exaggerated.

            There is absolutely no evidence to assess the compensation since the proceeding under C.P.Act is summary proceeding. However, there is no doubt that the Complainant had to run posts to pillars for his grievance but all his efforts were in vain for which he had to finally lodge a complaint in this forum.

            So, in our view, if a direction can be given upon the OPs to replace the washing machine along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.8,000/-, justice will be served.

            Hence

                        Ordered

            CC/386/2018 is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and OP No.2.

            OP No.2 is directed to replace the washing machine in question by new washing machine of same capacity and same function along with fresh warranty period within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.

            OP No.1 & OP No.2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.8,000/- as litigation cost within the aforesaid period of 45 days, in default the entire amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a.

            The OPs are further directed to lift up the washing machine in question from the Complainant’s address and deliver the new one at the same address without charging any extra costs from the Complainant.