REKHA GUPTA

                Revision petition no.  2606 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment dated 08.12.2014 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 1520 of 2013.

2.     No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He has however, sent his written arguments and requested that the case be decided on the basis of his written arguments. I have carefully gone through the written arguments and the documents placed on the file.

3.     The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner purchased a microwave oven manufactured by respondent no. 1 from respondent no. 2 dealer on 20.10.2008 at cost of Rs.7400/-. The said Microwave oven developed some defect and the same was taken from the petitioner’s possession by respondent no. 3 – service centre for repair at the behest of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 3 kept the microwave oven for a very long time and did not repair or return it to the petitioner. Petitioner was ready to pay the repair expenses but even then the respondent no. 3 did not reply to petitioner’s inquiries. Petitioner therefore complained before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (‘the District Forum’) for getting it repaired and to be returned to the petitioner and demanded Rs.10,000/- for compensation and Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and notice fee of Rs.5001/-. Notice was served on the respondents.

4.     The main argument for defence by the respondents was limitation of time. Respondent nos. 1 and 3 informed that the petitioner was given estimate through e-mail. The respondents said that they were ready to repair, if the petitioner pays Rs.4287/- and hence, the complaint should be quashed. Respondent no. 2 objected and said that he was dragged and made as a party unnecessarily. The said oven was purchased on 20.10.2008 and the complaint was made after a lapse of three years and ten months and was beyond the limitation of time, hence the complaint is liable to be quashed. The District Forum after considering all the documents and proofs of the parties allowed the complaint in favour of the petitioner and issued the final order, which reads as under:

• “Complaint of the complainant is allowed.
• The opponents in this case are ordered to repair and return the oven free of cost if it falls within the warranty period, else repair and return to complainant on charge, within one month from the date of the final order failing which all opponents will be liable to pay the full cost of the microwave oven to the complainant severely and jointly.
• All opponents to pay jointly and severely Rs.500/- to complainant for mental harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost”.

5.     Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under:

“The complaint is about non-repair and non-returning the microwave oven to complainant by opponent no.3. Complainant has not said that oven has manufacturing defect. Opponent had quoted Rs.2100/- as expenses for repair and complainant was ready to pay the same, as informed by the complainant but he has not submitted any proof to that extent. Opponent nos. 1 and 3 has informed that they are ready to repair the oven if the complainant pays the cost for the same. But they have never said that complainant is not ready to pay the costs for repair. Complainant has not submitted any proof for warranty of the oven. Oven developed trouble about three years and ten months and the opponents are ready to repair the oven on charges. However, opponent no. 3 has kept the oven in the service centre in their custody. They have not repaired it nor returned it to the complainant. To that extent there is deficiency of service.

As far as the question of compensation and mental harassment, looking to the cost of oven and particulars of the case, it is felt that the demand of the complainant is more.

The amount ordered by the District Forum for compensation and mental harassment is just and reasonable. The Forum has taken into account all details and discussed the same in order therefore, this State Forum is not repeating all those points. There seems to be no substance in the appeal. The decision of the Forum is just and reasonable. State Forum does not feel it necessary to interfere in the order of the District Forum and hence, following final order is issued:

• Appeal no. 1520 of 2013 is dismissed.
• The order of Rajkot District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 23.10.2012 in complaint no. 206 of 2012 is unaltered and kept as it is.
• No order as to expenses for appeal”.

6.     Hence, the present revision petition.

7.     The revision petition has been filed with an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. The revision petition has been filed for enhancement of compensation. He has further stated that the estimate given for repair of the microwave oven is excessive. He has stated that the cost of a magnetone being charged was Rs.2100/- whereas in the open market it is available for Rs.600/-.

8.     On-going through the record, we agree with the State Commission that the petitioner/ complainant has nowhere alleged that the microwave oven had a manufacturing defect. As per the petitioner the respondent/ opposite party had quoted Rs.2100/- as expenses for repair, the respondent/ opposite party however, has stated that the repair cost is Rs.4287/- and not Rs.2100/- and they are also willing to repair the microwave, if the cost of repair is paid. They have informed the petitioner accordingly. No additional fact or evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner to support and prove his allegation and the petitioner in the revision petition has merely reiterated all the allegations made in his complaint which have already been dealt in detail by the District Forum and the State Commission.

9.     Thus, I find no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown in the impugned order to call for our interference under Section 21 (b) of Act.  The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed.