IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                       Date of Decision:   16.05.2014

First Appeal No. - 39/2014

(Arising from the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by District Forum-III, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 94/2013)

1. We have heard Shri Pawan Kumar Rai, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Balwinder Singh, Respondent.
2. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 3.12.2013 passed by the District Forum-III, New Delhi.  Vide impugned orders, the following order was passed by the District Forum-III:

“Accordingly, we direct OP to replace the washing machine of the complainant with the same model having the correct measurements to the complainant and if for some good reason it is not possible then to refund the entire cost of the machine the complainant and get defective machine back.  We further award a cost of Rs. 4,000/- to complainant to be paid by OP and in the present facts and circumstances of the case OP is at liberty to get appropriate reimbursement from the manufacturer as per their trade policy. OP shall comply with the above mentioned order within 30 days of its receipt failing which proceedings u/s 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act may be initiated against them.”

1. In brief, the Respondent / Complainant has purchased a washing machine of the Model Arena plus 7 kg capacity from the Appellant /OP.  Grievance of the Complainant was that the machine was delivered at his house by the Appellant but with different specifications.  Instead of the capacity of 7kg, it has the capacity of 6kg.  Likewise its dimensions were also lesser than those shown on the card board cover of the machine.  Submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of parties is not sustainable in the eyes of law as no such plea was taken in the District Forum.  Appellant ought have appeared before the District Forum for effective adjudication of the matter.
2. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the Appellant did not participate in the proceedings before the District Forum.  He stood proceeded against ex-parte.  Ld. District Forum observed that the Appellant was required to rectify the defect after the Complainant had approached him.  During the course of arguments, the husband of the Appellant, Shri Tejinder Singh stated that his wife who is the proprietor of the appellant had forwarded the complaint to the manufacturer who had rectified the defect.  It is thus clear that there existed a defect for which the appellant had sent the complaint to the manufacturer.  It is not the case of the appellant that they changed the model and replaced it with the model of 7kg capacity which is the main grievance of the complainant / respondent.  Appellant has failed to produce any document showing that the manufacturer had actually rectified the defect.   Appellant also did not contest the case before the District Forum.
3. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits.  The appeal is dismissed.

1. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.

1. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.