CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.388/2009

SH. S.B. TRIPATHI

ADVOCATE,

62, LAWYERS CHAMBER,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,

NEW DELHI-110001

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                                VS.

M/S HAIER APPLIANCES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,

B-1/A-14(BASEMENT)

MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

MATHURA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110044

      …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                             Date of Order:11.08.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a semi automatic washing machine on 22.08.2004 for consideration of Rs.8,200/- from OP.  The said washing machine had a warranty for a period of three years.  That warranty was got extended for further period of three years that was valid till 21.08.2009 and complainant paid Rs.650/- for that.  On 02.05.2009, complainant lodged a report regarding problem in thermostat and pulsator of the washing machine.  The representative of the OP visited the house of the complainant on 03.05.2009 and opined that the thermostat and the pulsator needed to be replaced however nobody turned up for replacement of the same despite complainant talked to the representatives of the OP several times on phone and even wrote a letter dated 18.05.2009.  Ultimately complainant filed this complaint for deficiency in service praying for the change of thermostat and pulsator as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/- and ligation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

OP in the reply took the plea that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the aforesaid parts were duly replaced and OP has always attend the complaint.

Complainant in the written submission stated that on 25.05.2009, he informed an official of OP about filing of this complaint and thereafter OP on 28.05.09 replaced the thermostat and pulsator.  OP has placed on record the jobcard showing that the same were replaced on 28.05.2009.

We have carefully perused the record.

There is no reason to disbelieve the complainant so far as deficiency on the part of OP is concerned in not replacing the parts immediately.  The matter was reported on 02.05.2009.  Complainant talked to the officials of the OP several times as detailed in Para-4 of the complaint and he also sent letter by registered post on 18.05.2009 however despite that needful was not done.  Ultimately complaint was filed and complaint brought to the notice of OP about the filing of the complaint only thereafter the parts were replaced.

Taking into consideration the entire facts, interest of justice will suffice if a compensation of Rs.5,000/- is paid by the OP to the complainant.

Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

     (D.R. TAMTA)                     (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT