State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ifb Industries vs Dr.Paramjit Singh on 1 March, 2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal Case No. 300 of 2011 Date of institution: 09.11.2011 Date of decision 1..3.2012 IFB Industries Limited, through its Regional Accountant, Plot No.640A, PhaseXI, Mohali in complaint mentioned as Regional Manager Services, IFB Industries Limited, Home Appliances Division, Regd. Office, SCO No.146-147, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh-160022. anager. . Appellant Versus Dr.Paramjit Singh, resident of H.No.1113/2nd floor, Sector 43B, Chandigarh-160022(UT) . .. Respondent. Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 QUORUM : Justice Sham Sunder, President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
Sh.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member Present: Sh.P. K.Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. Mrs. Raminder Kaur, authorized representative of the respondent.
Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.9.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed opposite party No.1 to refund to the complainant the amount received by it, against the last two A.M.C. charges of each machine, alongwith a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The order was directed to be complied with by opposite party No.1, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it was made liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the total amount of compensation.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant (now respondent) purchased an IFB Dish Washer (DW Neptune) 006-100447-04 on 19.7.2006, vide Invoice NO.CHD-NO-SUR/175/0607, amounting to Rs.23,290/-. This machine was installed in the premises of the complainant on 20.7.2006. The same became functional on 27.7.2006. Thereafter, the complainant opted for an extended warranty, by paying an amount of Rs.2525/-, vide cheque No.297676 dated 17.9.2006 and receipt of the even date was issued by the opposite party. The extended period of warranty was to commence from 20.7.2008 upto 19.7.2010. It was further stated that an acqua-ECO-control system was also purchased by the complainant to cut down salt expenses and softening of water.
3. It was further stated that the complainant also purchased one IFB Digital Washing Machine (Sr.No.WT-DIG-B09731) on 20.2.2005 for Rs.24,000/-. An extended warranty for this washing machine, was also subscribed to, and an amount of Rs.1653/- was paid for the period from 28.2.2007 to 27.2.2009. At the end of the extended warranty period of this IFB Digital Washing Machine, the complainant subscribed to the Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs) on 27.02.2009 and 28.2.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.2919-/ and Rs.2383/- vide Receipt Nos. 4871& 4491 respectively. The last AMC was effective till 27.2.2011. The complainant also subscribed to AMC for the Neptune Dish Washer for the period 13.8.2010 to 12.8.2011 by paying an amount of Rs.2285/- on 13.8.2010 vide ICR No.2343.
4. It was further stated that the complainant had purchased these two appliances, as he had trusted the name of the Company and believed that he would be served in the best possible manner. It was further stated that, during the period of extended warranty, as well as during the period of Annual Maintenance Contracts, the representatives of the Company were not prompt, in their response, towards the requests of the complainant when there was breakdown of the Dish Washer as well as the Digital Washing Machine. The complainant was harassed by the repeated breakdown of both the machines as he had to lodge a number of complaints, as mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint from 19.2.2010 to 23.9.2010. He also made about 300 calls from Mobile No.9815553749 to the Complaint Centre, Service Station, Sr. Technicians and Sr.Engineers of the Company. It was further stated that the Technicians/Engineers of the opposite parties, who visited for the repair of machines, took a lot of time even in doing so. At times, they did not turn up for days together, while fetching the required spare parts for the completion of repairs, and the machines remained without use. It was further stated that proper service was not rendered by the opposite parties, during the extended warranty period, or during the period of Annual Maintenance Contracts, referred to above. It was further stated that the opposite parties were, thus, deficient, in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. It was further stated that the complainant had to suffer a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the act and conduct of the opposite parties. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him.
5. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable, as the complainant concealed the material facts. It was further pleaded that the machines, aforesaid, were purchased by the complainant on two different dates and, as such, one complaint was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the complaint was barred by time. It was stated that the machines, aforesaid, were sold to the complainant to his entire satisfaction. It was further stated that during the period of extended warranty, as also during the subsistence of Annual Maintenance Contracts, referred to, in the complaint, as and when a complaint was made by the complainant, the same was attended to by the Technicians of the opposite party. It was further stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the machines. It was further stated that had the complainant been not satisfied with the functioning of the machines, aforesaid, he would not have entered into A.M.Cs, in respect of the same, with the opposite party. It was further stated that there was no defect, in the appliances/machines. It was further stated that the complaint had been filed just with a view to extract money. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite party. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. Opposite parties No.2,3 & 4 were duly served, but they did not turn up , hence, they were proceeded against ex parte.
7. The complainant and opposite party No.1 led evidence, in support their case.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties , and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/ opposite party No.1.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Dr. Mrs.Raminder Kaur, authorized representative of the respondent, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. The Counsel for the appellant/ opposite party No.1, submitted that, since the complainant purchased one IFB Dish Washer on 13.7.2006 and Digital Washing Machine on 20.2.2005, the complaint having been filed on 18.10.2010, was palpably barred by time. He further submitted that though such an objection, was taken, in the written version, yet the same was not taken into consideration, by the District Forum. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant does not appear to be correct. No doubt, IFB Dish Washer was purchased on 13.7.2006 vide invoice No.CHD No.SUR/175/06-07 and IFB Digital Washing Machine was purchased on 20.2.2005. However, it may be stated here, that the extended warranties for different periods, were given by the opposite party. Even the complainant entered into Annual Maintenance Contracts for Digital Washing Machine from 28.2.2009 to 27.2.2010 and 28.2.2010 to 27.2.2011 by paying amounts of Rs.2919 and Rs.2388/-,vide invoice Nos.4871 and 4491 respectively. The said Annual Maintenance Contracts were effective till 27.2.2011. Similarly, the complainant had opted for extended warranty, in respect of washing machine from 20.7.2008 to 19.7.2010 by paying Rs.2525/- vide invoice No.4281. The complainant, had problem with the aforesaid appliances, during the subsistence of A.M.Cs, referred to above. These Annual Maintenance Contracts, were entered into, by the complainant, for consideration. If, during the subsistence of these contracts, there was any defect in the machines, it was the duty of the Technicians of the opposite parties, to remove the same, without causing any harassment to the complainant. The complaint was filed on 18.10.2010, when the AMCs, referred to above, were still in subsistence. The period of limitation, was not to be counted from the dates of purchase of the appliances, but from the time, when cause of action arose, to the complainant, and when the defects in the machines were not attended to, during the subsistence of A.M.Cs. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said, that the complaint was barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that since both the machines were purchased, on different dates, one complaint in respect of the same, could not be filed. It may be stated here that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, except those mentioned in Section 13(4) of the Act, are not applicable to the proceedings, in the Consumer Complaints. It was for the Consumer Fora, to evolve its own procedure, for deciding such complaints. The Consumer Foras are required to afford an opportunity to both the parties, to put forth their version and hearing before deciding the complaints. Since all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the complaints under the Act, it could not be said that the complaint was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. No prejudice stood caused to the opposite party, on account of filing of one complaint in respect of two machines, though purchased on different dates. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. The purchase of the aforesaid appliances/machines by the complainant, from the opposite party, was not disputed. It was also not in dispute that the extended warranties were given by the opposite party, to the complainant, in respect of the functioning of the machines. Undisputedly, the complainant entered into Annual Maintenance Contracts with the opposite party for the periods, referred to above, on payment of consideration. During the period of extended warranties, and subsistence of Annual Maintenance Contracts, it was the duty of the opposite parties, to attend to the complaints, made by the complainant, with regard to the defects in the appliances.
However, in para No.4 of the complaint, in so many words, it was stated by the complainant, that he made a number of complaints, regarding the defects in the machines, but the same were not attended to and rectified, on the ground, that at times the spare parts were not available. Even it is evident, from the averments made in the complaint, as also the short affidavit submitted by the complainant, that the Technicians of the opposite party, who came to rectify the defects, gave their conflicting views, as to from which defect, the said appliances suffered. At page 57 of the District Forum file, there is a copy of the detailed complaint made by the complainant to the opposite party on 11.6.2010. This was received by an official of IFB Industries on 11.6.2010, as is evident from the acknowledgment receipt appended on the same. In this document, the complainant, in detail, expressed his grievance. He also gave vivid details, as to when, he made complaints, with the Complaint Centre of the opposite party and how the same were not properly attended to by the Technicians/Engineers of the opposite party. Had the appliances, aforesaid, been functioning properly, the complainant would not have made oral and written complaints, referred to above. The mere fact that the complainant entered into Annual Maintenance Contracts, referred to above, with the opposite parties, did not mean that he was satisfied with their service. Normally a person, enters into an Annual Maintenance Contract, with the Company, from which he purchases the appliances/machines. Had the defects, which were pointed out, from time to time, by the complainant, in the aforesaid appliances, been attended to properly, and rectified, then the job cards, which were in the possession of the opposite party, could be placed on record. From those job cards, it could be established, as to whether, the defects, when pointed out by the complainant, in the appliances/machines, the same were removed, and the repairs were effected, to his satisfaction. Why those job cards, which were in possession of the opposite party, were not produced by it, is not known. Non production of the job cards, showing that the defects were allegedly removed, leads to an adverse inference, against the opposite party that had those been produced, the same would have gone against its interests and supported the claim of the complainant . The District Forum, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties, in not attending to the complaints of the complainant promptly, with regard to the defects in the appliances, during the subsistence of the Annual Maintenance Contracts, referred to above. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.
14. No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the parties.
15. The order impugned, rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
Sd/-
Announced (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) March 1,2012 President Sd/- (NEENA SANDHU) Member Sd/-
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) Member *Js STATE COMMISSION Appeal case NO.300/2011 Present: Sh.P. K.Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. Mrs. Raminder Kaur, authorized representative of the respondent.
Dated the 1st March,2012 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Neena Sandhu) (Justice Sham Sunder) (Jagroop Singh Mahal) Member President Member