Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/732

Bhupider Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Samsung India Elect.Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

K.G.Sharma Adv.

28 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:732 dated 18.12.2018             

                                            Date of decision: 28.01.2022

Bhupinder Singh aged about 40 years s/o Late S. Harbans Singh, r/o House No.2485, Street No.6, Kishore Nagar, Near Tajpur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab.                                                                                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

 

1.M/s Samsung India Electronics Private Limited having its registered office at A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its Director/Managing Director.

2.M/s Dee Kay Electronics having its office at 4167, Street No.5, Beantpura, Samrala Chowk, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana through its Partner/Proprietor.

 

                                                                              …..Opposite parties

 

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         None

For OP1                         :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Exparte

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a fully automatic washing machine from the OP2 vide bill No.DKCG-2059 dated 30.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.18,400/-. On 31.07.2018, when the complainant used the washing machine, he found that there was some problem in the dryer which was not functioning properly. The siren of the machine was also not working properly. The complainant immediately informed the OP1 through its customer support centre and on receipt of the complaint the OP1 assured that the problem would be solved within 24 hours. As no service engineer visited the complainant, another email was sent to the OP1 on 01.08.2018. Thereafter, a service engineer of OP1 came to the complainant but he was not able to solve the problem. Thereafter, the service engineer again visited the complainant on 03.08.2018 as well as on 04.08.2018 but the problem could not be solved. Another service engineer visited the complainant on 09.08.2018, 13.08.2018 and 17.08.2018 but the problem was not resolved. Subsequently the problem in the washing machine further increased. There was a gap in the drum and it started even tearing the clothes during washing. A service representative of the OPs visited the complainant in the last week of September 2018 who took pictures of gap and torn clothes. As the machine was not functioning properly, the complainant requested the OP1 through email to replace the washing machine or in the alternative to refund the money to the complainant. However, despite many complaints lodged with the OPs through emails, no action has been taken causing great mental tension and harassment to the complainant. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the defective washing machine or to refund the amount paid for the purchase of the machine along with compensation of Rs.1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.30,00/- and damages of Rs.50,000/-.

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

3.                The complaint has been resisted by OP1. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the product in question has no defect as alleged by the complainant and is in perfect working condition. According to the OP1, the complainant lodged first complaint on 31.07.2018 which was duly attended to by the service engineer. No problem in the spinner of the machine was found. The complainant was educated with regard to the operation of the machine and he was satisfied with its working. Thereafter, the complainant lodged second complaint on 25.09.2018 which was duly attended to by the service engineer. A gap was reported in the drum due to which the clothes were getting torn. The matter was explained to the complainant that the gap was due to design of the washing machine and it was not a defect. A demo of working was given by the service engineer and during demo, no clothes were found getting torn. The third complaint was received on 26.10.2018 which was also duly attended to by the service engineer and at that time, the complainant reported the problem of leakage of current in the washing machine resulting in electric shock while touching the machine. However, when the service engineer checked the washing machine, he did not experience any electric shock. The service engineer then checked the wiring/electric connection at the house of the complainant and there was no earthing. The service engineer accordingly advised the complainant to get the earthing done and explained that there was no defect in the washing machine. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP1 and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and controverted the written statement.

5.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the OP1 submitted affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Avtar Singh, Service Engineer/Manager of OP1 and that of affidavit Ex.RA1 of Sh.Anup Kumar Mathur, Director of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited along with along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence.

7.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 07.01.2022. We have, however, heard the learned counsel for the OP1 and have also gone through records. We proceed to decide the case on merits.          8.           In the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex.CA, the complainant has alleged that after he purchased the machine on 30.07.2018, he immediately started facing the problem as the washing machine was not functioning properly. It was not drying the clothes properly and siren of the machine was not working normally. In addition to this, there was a gap between the drum due to which many clothes were torn while washing and the defects could not be rectified despite several visits made by the service engineer of the OPs. However, to prove the so called manufacturing defect in the machine, the complainant has not examined any expert witness such as some technician or the service engineer qualified to repair the machine. In absence of the testimony of an expert witness, it cannot be said that the machine was defective or that its dryer and siren was not functioned properly or that clothes were getting torn during the process of washing. On the contrary, OP1 has submitted affidavit of Avtar Singh, Service Engineer, who has categorically stated in his affidavit Ex.RA that the complainant lodged complaint on 31.07.2018 which was attended by him and after thorough checking, no defect was found in the machine and it was in a perfect working condition. He has further stated that the complainant and his family members were admitted about the working of the machine and job sheet Ex.R1 was prepared. This witness has further stated in his affidavit Ex.RA that the complainant lodged another complaint on 25.09.2018 alleging some gap in the drum due to which the clothes were torn and he again visited and explained to the complainant that the gap in the drum was in fact not a defect and the machine was designed like that. He further checked the working and gave demo of working of machine for half hours and during this period, no clothes were getting torn while being washed in the machine and in this regard, job sheet Ex.R2 was prepared. According to this witness, third complaint lodged by the complainant on 26.10.2018 which was also attended to vide job sheet Ex.R3. At that time, the complaint was that the complainant was getting electric shocks whenever he touched the machine. The machine was again checked thoroughly at the premises of the complainant and there was no earthing done due to which, the complainant was getting electric shocks occasionally. During the course of checking of the washing machine, no electric current was found to be occurring and the complainant was advised to get the earthing done and was explained that it was not due to any defect in the machine. From the testimony of Avtar Singh, Service Engineer coupled with job sheets Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 proved by him, it emerges that there has been no defect in the washing machine as alleged by the complainant. Moreover, as stated above, the complainant has not examined any expert witness to contradict the testimony of Avtar Singh, Service Engineer and an adverse inference has been drawn against the complainant for not examining the expert witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that a defective machine was supplied to the complainant by the OPs.

9.                As a result of above discussion, 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. 

10.              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:28.01.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma.