Haryana

Kaithal

CC/60/2023

Nishant Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Surya Trading Company etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Sudershan

04 Jan 2024

ORDER

                       

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 60 of 2023.

                                                               Date of institution:   09.03.2023.

                                                               Date of decision:      04.01.2024.

 

Nishant Chaudhary s/o Shri Prem Chand Chaudhary, r/o 345, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. M/s Surya Trading Company through its Prop./Partner near I.G. School, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
2. IFB Industries Ltd., through its Manager, Office at General Elite  Complex, near Shani Mandir, Tau Devi Lal Chowk, Karnal.
3. Dev Electronics, through its Manager/Prop., Authorized Service Centre, near Bala Ji Atta Chakki, Rishi Nagar,  Opposite HUDA School wali Gali, Kaithal.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Balbir Bansal, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had purchased a Washing Machine manufactured by OP No.2 vide Invoice No.STC-1350 dated 09.01.2022 Model No.IFB TL-SDIN 11KG AQUA for a s sum of Rs.30,000/- from OP No.1 (authorized dealer). That after purchase of said machine, some inherent and incurable manufacturing defects have been occurred in the said machine like raising high noise, severing etc. and in this regard, he made so many online complaints vide Ticket No.1010050078 dated 07.11.2022 and 1010391018 dated 24.12.2022 to OPs No.1 & 2, upon which, officials of OPs came at his premises and made their efforts to rectify the defects of said machine, but all in vain. Thereafter, he met with OPs No.1 & 3 and requested to lodge request for replacement of said defective machine with new one, but they did nothing. The above act of OPs of selling defective washing machine to him, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part , due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OP No.2 appeared before this Commission and filed its written statement, whereas, OPs No.1 & 3 failed to appear, before this Commission on the date fixed i.e. 02.05.2023, despite receipt of notices from this Commission, as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement admitted about selling the washing machine in question to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has concocted a false story just to mislead this Commission. The complainant has lodged following requests with OP No.2:-

S.No.   Date                            Ticket No.  Observation          Action Taken

1.         07.11.2022      1010050078       detergent required      Supplied

2.         24.12.2022      1010050078       Noise and Vibration  Capacity of machine was 11                                                                                                               KG. Complainant overloaded                                                                                                 machine. Without adjustment                                                                                                 load reduced and machine                                                                                                        working fine.

 

5.                From perusal of said job cards reveals that there were no manufacturing defect in the appliance. There was no defect of high noise, severing etc. It is further submitted that on 07.11.2022 and 24.12.2022 the technician visited the house of complainant, inspected appliance and has not found any of the problem in the washing machine. There were neither any manufacturing defect in the machine nor any of the defects were required to be cured. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with costs.

6.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6.

7.                On the other hand, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased a Washing Machine manufactured vide Invoice No.STC-1350 dated 09.01.2022 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- from OP No.1. It is further argued that after purchase of said machine, some inherent and incurable manufacturing defects have been occurred in the said machine like raising high noise, severing etc. and in this regard, the complainant made so many online complaints vide Ticket No.1010050078 dated 07.11.2022 and 1010391018 dated 24.12.2022 to OPs No.1 & 2, upon which, officials of OPs came at the premises of complainant and made their efforts to rectify the defects of said machine, but all in vain. It is further argued that thereafter the complainant made various requests to OPs No.1 & 3 for replacement of said defective machine with new one, but they did nothing. It is further argued that the above act of OPs of selling defective washing machine to him, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.

10.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the complainant has lodged two requests with OP No.2. There were no manufacturing defect in the appliance. There was no defect of high noise, severing etc. It is further argued that on 07.11.2022 and 24.12.2022 the technician visited the house of complainant, inspected appliance and has not found any of the problem in the washing machine. There were neither any manufacturing defect in the machine nor any of the defects were required to be cured and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with costs.

11.              Undisputedly, on 09.01.2022, complainant had purchased one IFB washing machine, from OP No.1, for a sum of Rs.30,000/-, vide Tax Invoice Annexure C-1.

12.              The grievance of complainant is that the said washing machine was having some inherent/manufacturing defects like raising high noise, severing etc. and on his complaints, technician of OPs visited his premises and tried to rectify the defect of the washing machine, but all  in vain.

13.              To support his above contentions, complainant produced documents Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-3, on the case file and from perusal of above documents, we found that the complainant lodged his first complaint on 07.11.2022 regarding some defect in the said machine, with the OPs, vide Ticket No.1010050078 and thereafter, he lodged second complaint in this regard on 24.12.2022, with the OPs, vide Ticket No.1010391018.

14.              Contrary to it, OP No.2 has firstly drawn attention of this Commission towards Job Card dated 07.11.2022 Annexure R-2, vide which, it can be gathered that OP No.2 had supplied washing machine detergent to the complainant.

15.              OP No.2 further produced Job Card dated 24.12.2022 Annexure R3 on the case file and from perusal of contents of column “Action Taken” of said job card Annexure R-3, we found that, as per OP No.2, Washing machine in question was overloaded with clothes and complainant was advised to wash clothes as per operating manual of company. But it is pertinent to mention here that OP No.2 produced only System generated job cards i.e. Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-3, on the case file, rather OP No.2 failed to produce any job sheet, bearing signature of the complainant underneath it, from which, it can be gathered that the complainant was satisfied with the action taken by OPs regarding his grievance about washing machine in question. OP No.2 also failed to produce any report or affidavit of that engineer, who checked the washing machine in question. So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that washing machine in question of complainant became defective, and OP No.2 failed to redress the grievance of the complainant regarding defect of the washing machine in question, despite repeated requests, made by the complainant to them, time and again, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OP No.2, due to which, the complainant has suffered huge mental agony and physical harassment and left with no other option, except to knock the door of this Commission by way of filing the complaint in hand. In this way, OP No.2 is liable to refund the cost price of the washing machine in question, to the complainant. Since there are no specific allegations have been leveled against OPs No.1 & 3, by the complainant, nor has it been proved, therefore, complaint, filed against OPs No.1 & 3, is liable to be dismissed.

16.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.2 and dismiss the same against OPs No.1 & 3. We direct OP No.2 to refund the cost price of the washing machine in question amounting to Rs.30,000/- (subject matter of Tax Invoice Annexure C-1), subject to return of old washing machine in question, by the complainant, with the service centre of OP No.2 i.e. OP No.3. OP No.2 is further directed to make compliance of this order within 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

18.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:04.01.2024.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.