STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (First Appeal No.449 of 2010) Date of Institution | : | 13.12.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 19.5.2011 |
Ms. Sonia Nayyar, H.No.1091/1, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh. ……Appellant V E R S U S 1] M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd., Plot No. 40, Sector 44, Gurgaon – 122002 (Haryana) 2] M/s Supreme Electromach, Authorized Service Centre, Plot No.78, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh. 3] M/s Surindera Vision, Sector 35, Chandigarh. ....Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: None for the appellant Ms. Geeta Gulati, Adv. for respondent No.1 None for respondents No.2 & 3 PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.10.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 6.11.07, the complainant purchased a Whirlpool automatic washing machine for Rs.17,500/- from OP No.3. Later on, within nine months of its purchase, that too during the warranty period, the said machine developed some defect and its steel drum was replaced on 7.10.2008 by OP-2. On 14.10.2008, some parts, of the machine were replaced, during the warranty period and Rs.500/- were charged for the replacement of plastic parts, on the ground that the same were not covered under the warranty. Thereafter the machine started emanating some noise, for which a complaint regarding the same was lodged with the OPs on 5.10.2009. It was further stated that on 26.03.2010 the machine stopped working completely, whereafter, despite several attempts by the engineers of the OPs, the defect could not be rectified. It was further stated that despite payment of more than Rs.4270/-, the machine was still not in working condition. It was further stated that despite repeated requests to the OPs, they failed to repair or replace the defective machine. It was further stated that the acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency, in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. It was further stated that a lot of harassment was caused to the complainant, on account of malafide acts of the OPs. 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. 3. The District Forum, after perusing the record, came to the conclusion that it was not a fit complaint, which should be admitted. Accordingly, the same was dismissed at the preliminary hearing. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 5. When the appeal was fixed for arguments, neither the appellant nor her counsel came present. The perusal of the appeal file also showed that even on 25.2.2011 and 6.4.2011, neither the appellant nor her counsel was present. We were of the considered opinion that the appeal should be decided, on merits, than by default. 6. We have accordingly heard the Counsel for respondent No.1 and have gone through record of the case, carefully. 7. It is evident, from the record, that the machine in question was purchased by the complainant from OP-3 vide Annexure I, copy of the retail invoice on 6.11.2007, for a sum of Rs.17,500/-. The steel drum of the machine was replaced on 7.10.2008. Thereafter, it was repaired on 14.10.2008. At that time, some parts of the machine were replaced, free of cost, being under the warranty period and a sum of Rs.500/- was charged by the OPs for plastic parts, as there was no warranty, with regard to the same, as is evident from annexure III. Thereafter, no defect, regarding tub basket, driver assembly and PCB, which were replaced on 14.10.2008, was reported. On 5.10.2009, after a long period of more than 11 ½ months, that too after the expiry of the warranty period, a defect, according to the complainant, arose in the machine, as it was emanating noise. Some other defects were also pointed out by the complainant. She statedly, paid a sum of Rs.4,250/- for rectification of such defects, as is evident from Annexure V. Annexure III clearly reveals that as and when the defects in the said machine were reported by the complainant, the same were duly rectified by the OPs, according to the terms and conditions of the warranty. If some defects, in the machine arose, after the expiry of warranty period, then it was the duty of the complainant to get it repaired at her own cost. During the period of warranty, the defects, which were reported by the complainant, were duly rectified by the OPs, free of cost. The case of the complainant, to the effect, that the machine supplied to her was defective or having manufacturing defects, is not, at all, believable. No evidence of the expert, in the relevant field, was produced by the complainant, to prove that the machine was having inherent manufacturing defects. In the absence of such an expert opinion, the plea of the complainant, cannot be accepted as true. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor did they indulge into any unfair trade practice. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that there was no substance, in the complaint, and the same deserved to be dismissed. The order of the District Forum, does not suffer from illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merits, must fail and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 9. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 19th May, 2011 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER hg
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
