DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.91/2021
Ms Kasturi D Sen
Aradhna Home, Bhagwan Dass Lane
Bhagwan Dass Road,
New Delhi-110001
….Complainant
Versus
- Chawla Electronics (Regd)
3378, N S Marg, Daryaganj
Delhi
- L G Electronics India Pvt Ltd
D-3, 3rd Floor, Distt. Centre, A Wing
Saket, Delhi-110017 (registered Office)
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 02.03.2021
Date of Order : 25.11.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. D.P Kaushik for complainant.
Adv. Prashant Kumar Jha for OP.
ORDER
President: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine from Chawla Electronics hereinafter referred to as OP-1. The said washing machine is manufactured by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).
2. It is stated that complainant purchased the washing machine after paying consideration of Rs.15,300/- on 28.11.2018. Invoice of the machine is annexed as annexure CW1/1. It is stated that on 29.11.2018 a representative of OP-2 came to complainant’s place for giving demo of the gadget. The said person started the machine and fled without waiting for completion of the cycle of the machine. Upon completion of the cycle complainant found all the clothes unrinsed and uncleaned.
3. Complainant on 30.11.2018 registered a complaint with the customer care regarding the machine being faulty. It is stated that after few days same representative came and reset the machine, while the cycle was still in progress he left complainant’s place assuring her that now she will not face any problem. But to her shock and surprise the clothes were again unrinsed and uncleaned.
4. Complainant again lodged the complaint with OP-2 and insisted to take back the machine. OP-2 asked her to pay the service charges for attending upon her complaint. It is next stated that in the month of February 2019 after making several calls OP-2 sent another technician on 25.02.2019 who operated the machine setting the same as before and left after certain instructions. However, no positive result was achieved. OP-2 sent another representative on 12.03.2019 who operated the machine and waited till the end of the cycle but again the clothes came out uncleaned. Thereafter the complainant kept following with OP but no fruitful purpose was achieved. It is stated that the complainant being a senior citizen had to face lot of hardship due to the deficient services of OPs and is compelled to take care of the gadget which had no utility for her.
5. Alleging deficiency of service complainant prays for direction to OP to refund the price of the machine in question with interest @24% per annum; pay Rs.3,00,000/- for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony; pay Rs.50,000/- towards transport charges as complainant is unable to move alone; pay @Rs.300/- per day towards maintenance of the gadget from the date of purchase i.e. 28.11.2011 till redressal of her grievance.
6. OP-2 resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the complainant for the first time complained on 31.12.2018 after a month of using the product. The complaint was regarding the clothes not being washed properly, the service executive visited the premises of the complainant and no defects were found with the product. The complainant was provided with the manual of the product, which provides detailed procedure and settings of the machine to be used with different types of clothes. Job sheets with respect to the complaints are annexed as annexure R/1 and R/2 .
7. It is stated that the complainant made several complaints regarding the same issue and every time the service engineers visited her premises but no defect was found in the product in question. The only defect reported by the complainant was regarding the cleaning issue which was due to improper use by the complainant.
8. In light of the facts above OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
9. Complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and denying that complaint regarding the product in question was filed for the first time on 31.12.2018. It is stated that the said date was preceded by a series of complaints. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed on behalf of OP. Parties have filed written arguments. Submissions made are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
10. Complainant in support of her case has filed the invoice dated 28.11.2018 which proves the fact that LG Washing Machine was purchased by the complainant after paying the consideration of Rs.15,300/-. Complainant’s claim is that the washing machine did not clean the clothes properly. Complainant filed numerous complaints with OP regarding the same, however the problem could not be rectified. Hence the complaint.
11. Complainant has not filed any evidence/job sheets on record to prove her case. No expert opinion with regard to washing machine being defective has been filed by the complainant. Bald averments without any substantial evidence has no value in the eyes of law. However, OP has not denied the complaints received from the complainant. OP has filed certain job sheets showing that the complaints filed by the complainant were attended upon and no defect per se was found with the washing machine. The job sheets placed on record are computer generated and are not signed by the complainant therefore, OP’s reliance on the job sheets is misconceived .
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
13. In light of the facts that the averments made in the complaint are not evidenced and the judgment supra, Complaint is dismissed.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
