1.       Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Petitioner/Complainant, is to the Order dated 03.10.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 21/2016. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission reversing the Order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No. 237/2013, has allowed the Appeal filed by the  Opposite Party/Respondent herein and dismissed the Complaint of the Petitioner.  

2.       Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, as culled out from the Complaint, are that the Complainant purchased a Dishwasher Neptune Dx Machine manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 from Opposite Party No.2 for ₹28,000/- on 12.01.2012, having extended warranty of 2 years from 12.01.2012 to 12.01.2014. Complainant also incurred a sum of ₹2,482/- for purchasing additional extended warranty for 2 years from 12.01.2014 to 11.01.2016. The said Dishwasher was delivered and installed at Complainant’s residence by Respondent No.2 after delay of 6-7 days from the date of its purchase. It is stated by the Complainant that the Dishwasher was not working properly since the very first day from the its purchase. The Complainant made several complaints to Respondent No.1 from November 2012 till February, 2013, however, default in the Dishwasher could not be fixed. It is further stated that on the advice of a visiting Engineer of Respondent No.1 that the defect might be due to less water pressure, the Complainant spent ₹15,000/- for purchasing Pressure Pump in order to maintain requisite water pressure, however, the problem still persisted. Subsequently, a Senior Engineer of Respondent No.1 on visit and inspection of Dishwater stated that Error F5 is occurring in the Machine. Vide letter dated 15.03.2013, the Respondent No.1 informed the Complainant that there is Error F5 occurring in machine which is not traceable at Complainant’s residence and machine is required to be brought at Service Centre for further diagnosis. A proposal was also made to provide Stand By Machine to the Complainant. The machine was lifted by the Respondent No. 1 on 02.04.2013 and a Stand By Machine was given to the Complainant. Vide letter dated 12.04.2013, the Respondent No.1 informed the Complainant that all the components of the machine had been tested in the Branch Service Centre and the machine is found in ok condition. Complainant before the accepting the repaired machine, requested the Respondent No.1 to give an undertaking that in case of any future defect, they would replace the machine. However, the Respondent No.1 refused to give the said undertaking as a result of which the Complainant also refused to return the stand-by machine.

3.       Aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint no 237 of 2013 before the District Forum, inter alia, alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein thereby causing harassment, hardships, humiliation and mental agony to the Complainant.

4.       Upon notice, the Complaint was resisted by the Respondent No.1 on the ground that the Complainant has filed a false and frivolous Complaint since the Complainant never accepted the Dishwasher, which was attempted to be returned on 11.04.2013 after due repair. Instead the Complainant has withheld the Stand By Machine and refused to return the same. The Respondent No.1 further stated that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed due to lack of cause of action. 

5.       Upon appraisal of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that admittedly there was a defect in the Complainant’s washing machine which the Opposite Party could not diagnose at Complainant’s residence and delivered back the same to the complainant’s satisfaction. Accordingly, District Forum allowed the Complaint holding the Opposite Parties guilty of deficiency in service and directed them to jointly and severally refund ₹28,000/- and ₹2,482/- to the Complainant along with Compensation of ₹10,000/- towards harassment and mental agony.     

6.       Dis-satisfied, Opposite Party No.1 preferred Appeal before the State Commission being First Appeal No. 21 of 2016 on the grounds that the Complainant herself refused to accept the Dishwasher Machine from the Service Centre and is thus not entitled to any relief; the finding of the District Forum that the Machine was defective, was not based on any expert opinion and that the “Error F5” indicated inadequate water supply and thus there was no manufacturing defect in the machine requiring replacement of the machine with new one.

07.     The State Commission, after considering the facts and circumstance of the case, allowed the Appeal preferred by Opposite Party No.1.  The State Commission was of the view that there was merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 that the District Forum had granted relief worth more than the price of the machine, more so, when the Complainant was still in possession of a Stand By Machine. Further, reliance was also placed by the State Commission on its a similarly placed Order dated 14.05.2018 passed in First Appeal No. 26 of 2014 titled M/s IFB Industries Ltd Vs. Arvind Dhingra.  

7.       Pertinently, the Respondent No.2/ARVEE Sales was proceeded ex-parte before the State Commission and District Commission.

8.       Hence, the Complainant is before us through this Revision Petition.  

9.       We have heard the Complainant appearing in person, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Satish Kumar, Authorized Representative of the Respondent No.2 and also perused the material available on record. Despite opportunity having been granted, the parties have not filed the Written Submissions in terms of the Order dated 16.03.2021.

10.     The admitted facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a new branded IFB Dishwater: Neptune DX Machine manufactured by the Respondent No.1, from its authorized dealer, M/s. Arvee Sales, i.e, Respondent No.2 for a sum of for ₹28,000/- on 12.01.2012. The said machine was under warranty for two years from 12.01.2012 to 12.01.2014. The Complainant paid a sum of ₹2,482/- for extended warranty of two years from 12.01.2014 to 11.01.2016. It is urged by the Complainant that during the warranty period, the machine has started giving trouble from the very first day of its purchase as the machine used to come to a halt on its own without performing any function. During the period from November 2012 to February 2013, she made about 125 calls to the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects in the machine but in vein. It is further submitted by her that on the advice of a visiting Engineer of the Opposite Parties that the fault in the machine may be due to inadequate water pressure, she spent a sum of ₹15,000/- for installing the Pressure Pump to ensure the adequate water pressure, however, the defect in the machine still subsisted. Subsequently, a Senior Engineer visited the Complainant’s premises and noticed that an Error F5 is occurring in the machine which is not traceable at the residence of the Complainant and the machine was required to be taken to the Service Centre for further diagnosis. It is fervently submitted by the Complainant that Error F5 is a manufacturing defect which has occurred in the machine during the warranty period and the machine has to be replaced with a new branded machine. Contrary to this, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has supported the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission.

11.     Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the material available on record including the Orders passed by the Fora below, I am of the considered view that both the Fora below have not duly appreciated the facts of the case inasmuch as no conclusive finding of facts has been recorded either by the District Forum or the State Commission with regard to any inherent manufacturing defect in the machine in question as alleged by the Complainant.  The finding of the fora below is wholly based on conjecture and surmises only. On the basis of the Letter dated 15.03.2013 written by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant admitting that there is Error F5 in the machine, the District Forum has arrived at the conclusion that there is defect in the machine and directed the Opposite Parties to jointly or severally refund ₹28,000/- towards costs of machine, ₹2,482/- paid towards extending the warranty for further two years and ₹10,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony.  On the other hand, the State Commission while allowing the Appeal of the Opposite Party No.1 and dismissing the Complaint, has concluded that the relief granted by the District Forum to the Complainant is worth more than the price of the machine. Further, it has also come to the conclusion that the matter is squarely covered with its decision passed in First Appeal No. 26 of 2014 titled M/s. IFB Industries Ltd. Vs. Arvind Dhinga wherein the Appeal of the Opposite Party No.1 was allowed, order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint alleging defect in the Dishwater machine was dismissed. I do not appreciate such approach of the State Commission. If the State Commission was of the opinion that there was any manufacturing defect in the machine but the relief granted by the District Forum was much more than the costs of the machine, it would have molded the relief to maintain the balance of equity between the parties instead of dismissing the Complaint. Further, the facts of the First Appeal No. 26 of 2014 are distinct in nature to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the Drain Pump and the Wash Pump of the machine were cut by rats and since the same were not covered under the warranty, the Order passed by the District Forum granting the relief to the Complainant, was set aside.  However, in the present case, the defect of “Error F5” was duly covered under the Warranty Clause. As such, both the Fora below have failed to return a conclusive finding as to whether there was any inherent defect in the machine or not. 

12.     The Complainant, vide letter dated 20.03.2013 informed to the Opposite Parties that the Error F5 is a manufacturing defect in the machine and therefore, the machine has to be replaced with new one in terms of the Warranty Clause. However, vide letter dated 21.03.2013, the Opposite Party No.1 denied any manufacturing defect in the machine and requested the Complainant to allow them to lift the machine as the F5 defect was not traceable at her residence’s premises. They further offered to provide a stand by machine to the Complainant to avoid any inconvenience. The Complainant vide letter dated 29.03.2013 allowed the Opposite Party No.1 to lift the machine from her premises to the Service Centre to diagnosis the exact defect subject to return of the machine duly rectified within a period of 7 days. On 02.04.2013, the Opposite Party No.1 lifted the machine and provided a stand by machine (old W/O packing Neptune) to the Complainant. After removing the defects in the machine, the Opposite Party No.1 requested the Complainant to take the delivery of the machine. However, the Complainant refused to take the delivery without an undertaking from the Opposite Parties to the effect that in case of future defect, the machine will be replaced with the new one. She also refused to return the stand by machine.

13.     Now, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the machine or not.  However, at this belated stage, it will not be fruitful to decide this issue and it is kept open. The machine was purchased by the Complainant on 12.01.2012. The warranty of the machine had already expired on 11.01.2016 including the extended warranty. As such, it will not be in the interest of justice to direct the Complainant to take the delivery of the machine in question with some compensation for the inconvenience caused to her on account of defect in the machine and, of course, subject to return of the stand by machine or even it will be detriment to the interest of the Opposite Parties to direct them to replace the machine with new one and take back the stand by machine which has been used by the Complainant for the last 5 or 6 years. Moreover, the Opposite Parties cannot be directed to replace the machine with new one since it was used by the Complainant for 10 months from January 2012 to November 2012 when the first complaint was lodged by the Complainant with them. Further, since the machine was under warranty till 11.01.2016, the Complainant ought not to compel the Opposite Parties to give an undertaking that in case of future defect, they had to replace the machine with new one. However, undoubtedly, Complainant is entitled for some compensation as there was some defect in the machine which could not be detected at her residence’s premises by the field staff of the Opposite Parties despite incurring an expenditure of ₹15,000/- for purchasing Pressure Pump to maintain the adequate water pressure.

14.     Under these circumstances, with a view to bring quietus to the controversy involved in this case and to meet the ends of justice, I partly allow the present Revision Petition and set aside the orders passed by the Fora below with a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay jointly or severally a consolidated compensation of ₹15,000/- to the Complainants since the Stand By machine has been retained by her.  The said machine is not required to be returned by her. The amount so directed shall be paid jointly or severally by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the Order. The Complainant shall also be entitled for costs for the entire proceedings which I  quantify at ₹5,000/-.