ORDER
V. K. DABAS, MEMBER
In brief the case of the complainant is that she had purchased a semi Automatic Washing machine SL. No. DH 2351425 Electrolux WN 60 E GGL (6.0Kg) worth Rs. 13,498/- vide invoice no. 307-DKB01-155113 dated 02.1.2015 amounting to Rs. 12,499/- and vide receipt no. 307-DKB01-15RFCV 3 dated 02.01.2015 of Rs. 999/- from OP1.
It is alleged by the complainant that the machine was not working properly from the date of its purchase and she had made a complaint to OP (authorize service centre of the OP2. The mechanic deputed for repair of the machine by OP1 informed her that there was a manufacturing defect in the motor and roller of the washing machine and it could not be removed. It is also alleged by her that the mechanic had advised her to get the machine replaced from OP1. It is alleged that she approached OP1 service centre several times second items to replace the machine but to no avail despite the machine was in warranty period. Therefore, the complainant has approached this forum for redressal of her grievances.
Despite service of notice, both the oPs failed to appear, hence they were ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.
In the evidence , the complainant has filed his own affidavit along with photocopies of bills , copy of the legal notice to Ops. She has corroborated the contents of the complainant in her affidavit of evidence. It is pertinent to point out that the Ops had not replied to this legal notice served upon them and had simply ignored the same. In a number of cases, courts have held that where serious allegations are made against a noticee in a notice and the allegations are not refuted and the notice is simply ignored, a presumption may be drawn that the allegations made in the notice are true. (See Kalu Ram VsSita Ram 1980 RLR (Note 44) and Metro Polis Travels vsSumitKalra&Another 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB). The present case is one where a presumption needs to be drawn against the Ops.
The affidavit filed by the complainant has remained unrebutted . We are convinced that the washing machine supplied to the complainant had an inherent defect which could not be repaired by the service engineers of the Ops.
In R. Sachdev Vs. ICICI Bank, , FA762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ what is the use of such good or article if it loses its utility after a period of one month of its purchase . The object of the Consumer Protection Act, it is safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders for selling substandard or defective goods.”
In another case titled Col. Ravinder Pal Brar Vs. Asian Motors, FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007 , the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ The disputes between the consumer and the service providers and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and manufacturers to refund the cost of the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumers, cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.”
In view of the judgments quoted by us above in the facts and circumstances of the case. We , hold OP1 & OP2 deficient in rendering service to the complainant and accordingly direct OP1 & OP2 as under:-
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 13,498/- as cost of the washing machine.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7500/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by her which will also include the cost of litigation.
- The complainant will hand over the machine after receiving the payment.
The above amount shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
A copy of this order be made available to both the parties free of cost as per law.
Announced on _________________.
