This revision petition is directed against the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi dated 1.12.2006 vide which order dated 9.9.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate in complaint No.301/2004 has been upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed.

          Briefly stated, the petitioner is a proprietary firm running a workshop engaged in the repair and maintenance of electrical and electronics goods.  Respondent/complainant had given his microwave oven to the petitioner for repairs on 20.1.2004 which was repaired by changing the front panel.  A sum of Rs.2200/- which included cost of the panel as well as the service for the same have been charged from the complainant.  The machine however stopped functioning after 3-4 days. The petitioner was contacted by the complainant who after inspection of the microwave oven at the residence of the complainant brought the same to the workshop once again for repairs on the ground that the same could not be repaired at the residence.  The oven was kept for another 25 days allegedly for finding out whether the spare parts not readily available in the market could be sourced from the company authorized dealer.  According to the complainant, it was during this period that some of the original parts of the microwave oven were changed by the petitioner and the machine was tempered with.  Finally, oven was returned on the plea that some of the spare parts were not available.  Thereafter, the complainant got the machine checked from some other mechanic and was informed that some of the original parts had been removed/changed from the machine.  This was informed to the petitioner but of no response from his side.  The complainant thereafter got the machine repaired from the authorized service center namely Panasonic Jaypee Electronics who charged him a sum of Rs.4,415/-. The respondent/complainant thereafter filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service by the petitioner before the District Forum who after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing their arguments, came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein who was the opposite party before the District Forum committed deficiency of service and was also guilty of adopting unfair trade practice.  The District Forum ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- including the amount which the complainant had spent on repairs.  The amount was to be paid within 30 days, failing which an additional burden of interest @ 9% would be leviable.

          When this order of the District Forum was challenged before the State commission, it was held that the circumstances proved that the microwave oven was not repaired properly by the petitioner/opposite party and the respondent/complainant had to suffer additional expenditure.  The State Commission found that the order of the District Forum was well reasoned and did not find any ground to interfere with the order.  The appeal, therefore, was dismissed. 

          During the course of proceedings in the revision petition before us, learned counsel for the petitioner had taken a plea on 23.2.2007 that the respondent/complainant was allowed to file additional affidavit by way of evidence before the District Forum at the fag end.  The petitioner/opposite party was not permitted by the District Forum to file affidavit to controvert the additional affidavit of the complainant.  It was in this background that the original records of the District Forum as well as the State Commission have been summoned by us.   We have perused the same.  The District Forum on 15.7.2005 has passed the following order :-

“Complainant filed an application for bringing on record the additional affidavit and also certain documents.  Copy of which offered to Shri Rajiv Madhok who refused to accept it.  The same is taken on record as OP is not filing any objection for the same.  Adjourned to 1.9.2005 for arguments.”

Since this order clearly states that a copy of the additional affidavit and certain documents were offered to Shri Rajiv Madhok, proprietor of OP, who refused to accept it, we find  the allegation of Shri Jain totally untenable.

Learned counsel thereafter has contended that Consumer Fora below have failed to appreciate that  defect when the microwave oven was first brought to the petitioner’s work shop and the defect noticed on the second occasions were totally different and not connected with each other in any manner.  They have also overlooked the fact that said oven was repaired to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and as per his own admission, the oven has worked satisfactorily for four days.  Learned counsel contends that it was only thereafter that due to heavy fluctuation in the supply of electricity resulting in unregulated high voltage passing on to the microprocessor that the machine stopped functioning due to damage so caused.  He has further contended that  the delay of 25 days was due to efforts required to sourcing the spare parts which were not readily available in the market and, therefore, rather than taking it to be a sincere desire on part of the petitioner to render proper service unjustified negative view was taken by the fora below.  He has further contended that the complainant had approached the authorized service center of Panasonic after a period of more than eleven months when the dispute was already pending before the District Forum.  Alleging that this was after thought and a calculated move to justify his claim, the counsel contends that the job sheet does not state  the year of manufacture of the machine which is the normal practice of all authorized service centers.   He has also contended that the compensation of Rs.15,000/- is rather high, since a microwave today is available in the market in the range of Rs.5000/- to 7000/-.  “Respondent/complainant who has appeared in person on the other hand has narrated his owe and harassment and repeated visit to the petitioner’s workshop despite being a senior citizen and has contended that the petitioner has been deficient in service which is evident from the fact that authorized service center has finally repaired the machine for which he had to pay the additional amount of Rs.4,415/-.  He contends that the compensation is inadequate as he has already paid Rs.4415/- + Rs.2200/- = Rs.6615/- for repairs and the numerous visits and harassment should be taken into account. 

  We have perused the records and heard both the parties.  It is admitted by the petitioner that the microwave oven after tis repair developed defects after four days of its delivery to the respondent/complainant.  The main contention of the petitioner is that the defects which developed subsequent to its repair was due to unregulated high voltage passing on to the microprocessor causing damage to the machine.  According to him, the front panel which he had replaced was still in working condition therefore he could not be held responsible for the damage to other parts of the machine due to heavy electric current fluctuation.  On this, we find that the records do not support him in as much as the job sheet/receipt issued by the authorized service center of National Panasonic clearly indicate that the membrane had to be changed for which they have charged a sum of Rs.2446/- from the respondent/complainant. This aspect has also been dealt with by the District Forum in which it has been stated as under :-

“The same spare part namely front panel Membrane has (had) to be changed once again just after a few days.”

          The District Forum has further stated that as per terms and conditions, the repairs of the parts was guaranteed against the same fault for a period of one month after delivery.  However, when the defect re-appeared just after 3-4 days and when contacted the opposite party did not respond properly.  In this background of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the damage to the machine was caused due to unregulated high voltage passing through the microprocessor does not support his case.  With regard to the undue  delay of retaining the oven for a period of 25 days, we are not convinced that such a long period was necessary.  If the petitioner indeed wanted to render sincere service to the customer, he ought to have contacted the authorized service center or the manufacturing concerned to ascertain as to whether the defective spare parts were available with them.  In the absence of any effort  indicated or any evidence rendered in support thereof, we can not but take the view that there has been deficiency in service.  The State Commission has up held the order of the District forum and we find no improprietary or illegality in the orders passed by these two Consumer Fora  below.  Considering that electronic gadgets are susceptible to quick change of technology and are also becoming cheaper day by day, in our view the lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- fully meets ends of justice.  Thus, we find no justification to interfere with the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below and, therefore, dismiss the revision petition with no order as to costs.