Back
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President;
Sh. B.L. Anand, Member; Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member.
WHITELINE APPLIANCES—Appellant
versus
MRS. SUDHA PRASAD & ORS.—Respondents
Case No. A-125/90–Decided on 24.12.1990
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Sh. Ramji Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
A consumer is entitled to quality goods and services. A manufacturer is liable for defective goods. A consumer has a duty to use goods according to operating instructions. A consumer's failure to prove a manufacturing defect bars a claim for a refund of the price of the goods.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - DEFECTIVE GOODS - REFUND OF PRICE - WARRANTY - EXTENSION OF WARRANTY PERIOD - SERVICE OF GOODS - FREE SERVICE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - CONSUMER'S RIGHT TO QUALITY GOODS AND SERVICES - MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE GOODS - CONSUMER'S DUTY TO USE GOODS ACCORDING TO OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS - CONSUMER'S FAILURE TO PROVE MANUFACTURING DEFECT - CONSUMER'S RIGHT TO FREE SERVICE AND EXTENSION OF WARRANTY PERIOD.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a washing machine from the appellant. The washing machine gave trouble-free service for a period of almost 3 1/2 months from 11.11.89 to 23.2.90 and earlier for a period of one month from 12.10.89 to 9.11.89. The respondent made several complaints about the noise made by the washing machine. The appellant's mechanic visited the respondent's house and found that the noise was due to the wooden stand on which the machine was placed. The mechanic removed the wooden stand and the washing machine began functioning normally. The respondent did not make any further complaint to the appellant but filed a complaint in the District Forum alleging that the machine was constantly giving trouble.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the washing machine gave satisfactory service for a period of almost one month from 12.10.89, when it was installed, to 7.11.89 when the first complaint about “noise” was made, again from 11.11.89 to 23.2.90 for a period of 3 1/2 months. The court also found that the respondent did not use the machine according to the operating instructions as laid down by the manufacturer. The court held that the respondent had not proved that there was any manufacturing defect in the machine.
Issues: Whether the appellant is liable to refund the price of the washing machine to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant is not liable to refund the price of the washing machine to the respondent because the respondent had not proved that there was any manufacturing defect in the machine. The court also held that the respondent had not used the machine according to the operating instructions as laid down by the manufacturer.
Final Decision: The court accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. The court directed the appellant to service the washing machine free of charge for a period of six months and extend the warranty period for a period of one year, from the date of the order.
Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member : ––This is an appeal against the order the District Forum dated 26.4.90/14.5.90 in case no. 510/90 entitled Mrs. Sudha Prasad v. Whiteline Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Trak Appliances Pvt. Ltd. wherein the District Forum had ordered the appellant, respondent No. 1 in the District Forum, to pay Rs. 15,700/- together with interest @ 15% per annum from 13.10.89 till the date of payment and Rs. 2,000/- as damages within a month of the date of order, failing which action under Consumer Protection Act shall be taken against them.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mrs. Sudha Prasad, the respondent, purchased a Trak Supermatic Washing Machine on 9.10.89 for a sum of Rs. 15,700/- from M/s Whiteline Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. situated at B-45,9, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Purarn, New Delhi manufactured by Trak Appliances Pvt. Ltd. having registered office at 5-Smith Road, Mount Road, Madras-600 002. She lodged a complaint in the District Forum on 7.3.90 stating that the washing machine had been constantly giving trouble since the very installation of the machine and requested for refund of rupees 15,700/- along with interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- from the agent of the manufacturer.
3. We have examined the service card of M/s Whiteline Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. M.C. No. 1272 (Annexure P-4) wherein we find that respondent had made four complaints after the purchase of washing machine on 9.10.89 and installation on 12.10.89. First one on 7.11.89 almost one month after installation and the second on 11.11.89. In both the complaints it was mentioned that the machine was making “noise”. The pump was adjusted and checked in response to the first complaint and all the nuts were tightened while attending to the second complaint. At this time it was also discovered that the noise was due to the imbalance created by the wooden board on which the machine was placed by the respondent No. 1, complainant in the District Forum. The third complaint was made after a gap of almost 3 1/2 months on 23.2.90, stating that the front door opened and there was noise. This complaint was attended on 24.2.90 and the front door was adjusted. The noise was attributed to the wooden stand on which the machine was placed. The fourth complaint was attended to on 3.3.90 as the machine was not working. At this time pump wire and earth wire were adjusted and the wooden platform on which the machine had been placed was removed. The persual of the complaints made shows that the machine gave trouble free service for a period of almost 3 1/2 months from 11.11.89 to 23.2.90 and earlier for a period of one month from 12.10.89 to 9.11.89.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant forcefully argued that respondent No. 1, complainant in the District Forum, had made vague allegations and had failed to establish any specific defect in the washing machine. She had complained mostly about the “noise” made by the washing machine. Further she had not been using the washing machine strictly according to the operating instructions issued by the manufacturers M/s Trak Applances Pvt. Ltd. He brought to our notice the fact that while attending to the complaints made on 11.11.89 and 23.2.90 it was discovered that respondent No. 1 suo-moto had installed the washing machine on a wooden stand. This created imbalance and was not advised to be used by the manufacturer. This fact was communicated to respondent No. 1 who was advised to remove the wooden stand. While the attending to the respondent’s complaint on 3.3.90 it was again discovered that the wooden stand had not been removed by respondent No. 1 despite earlier advice, thus resulting in unbalanced operation. The service engineer himself removed the wooden stand and the washing machine began functioning normally. Respondent No. 1 made no further complaint to the appellant after this but filed a complaint on 7.3.90 in the District Forum alleging inter alia that “the machine was constantly giving t
