Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTEs
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President;
Dr. P.K. Vasudeva & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
M/S. VOLTAS LIMITED & ANR.—Appellants
versus
S.P. VIJ & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal Case No. 222 of 1999—Decided on 19.1.2000
refund - washing machine - The court ordered a refund of the price of the washing machine with interest and costs due to its non-functionality and unsatisfactory performance, supported by the detailed report of the Local Commissioner.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine which malfunctioned from the beginning, leaving dirt and detergent on the clothes. Despite several complaints, the dealer/manufacturer failed to rectify the fault, leading to the complaint being filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the consumer respondent, ordering a refund of the price with interest and costs, as the machine was non-functional, supported by the report of the Local Commissioner.
Issues: Non-functionality of the washing machine, poor response from the dealer/manufacturer, and failure to rectify the fault.
Ratio Decidendi: The detailed report of the Local Commissioner supported the complainant's claims of non-functionality, leading to the court's decision to order a refund.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal for enhancement of compensation was also dismissed.
Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President—On the complaint of S.P. Vij, a resident of Punjab University Enclave, Sector 14, Chandigarh, the District Forum-II, Chandigarh ordered on 6.10.1999 refund of Rs. 24,250/- with interest and costs in respect of the washing machine which was found unsatisfactory. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.
2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant purchased one Voltas Mega Laundrette which was described as a fully automatic washing machine on payment of Rs. 24,250/- in cash on 29.11.1995 (Annexure C-1). It was installed the next day on 30.11.1995 but from the very beginning it started mal-functioning and invariably failed to wash the clothes leaving dirt thereupon and detergent as well on the clothes. It was specifically alleged in the complaint that in fact it stopped functioning during its operation and was required to be activated again and again. Several complaints were made but the representatives of the Company failed to locate and rectify the fault. The complainant was disappointed on account of poor response from the dealer/manufacturer and ultimately instituted the complaint on 27.2.1996.
3. The complaint is supported by a detailed affidavit of Dr. S.P. Vij, the complainant, Professor in the Department of Botany, Punjab University, Chandigarh. The important paras 6 and 7 from the affidavit of the complainant are reproduced as under :
“6. That the machine was delivered on 29.11.1995 itself but the same could not be installed as the Service Engineer of the Company Mr. A. Roy wanted us to get the necessary masonry and plumbing job to be done and after the said jobs were got done at the expense of the deponent/complainant, the machine was installed on 30.11.1995 and right from the day of the installation, the said machine had started malfunctioning and had invariably failed to wash the clothes clean, leaving dirt and detergent on them. It even stopped functioning during its operation and was required to be reactivised again by switching off and resetting for another cycle of full operation. Since the machine had been malfunctioning from the very day of its installation, the deponent/complainant informed the dealer about the same and also the Area Sales Manager of the Company the very next day. Since no action was taken on the complaint of the deponent/complainant, the deponent/complainant made a complaint in writing vide its letter dated 5.12.1995 under UPC. The said complaint is Ex. C2 and the postal certificate is Ex. C-3.
7. That on the complaint of the deponent/complainant the Company deputed Mr. A. Roy and Mr. Naresh Razdan as their representatives to identify and rectify the fault. When they failed to identify and rectify the fault they assured that they would recommend either the replacement of the machine or its full refund since they felt that the machine was having some major manufacturing defect which could not be rectified.”
4. There is no affidavit from Shri Aniruddha Roy, a supervisor of the dealers who allegedly went to the premises of the complainant at the time of installation. Thus it is a case where there was practically no response to look into the grievances which the complainant had in respect of the non-functioning of the machine. It was during proceedings in the District Forum that Shri Jasbir Singh, a technician was deputed to inspect working of the machine. Though date and time was also suggested by the District Forum, yet there was no response on behalf of the dealers. The report of the Local Commissioner dated 12.7.1999 referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents and relied upon by the District Forum, is reproduced as under :
“Videocon Appliances Ltd. Videocon
25/3, Industrial Area, Phase-II, UT, Chandigarh
Dated : 12th July, 1999
To,
The Hon’ble President
Consumer Redressal Forum
UT. Chandigarh
Hon’ble Sir,
As per your instructions, I, Jasbir Singh, was appointed Local Commissioner (L.C.) to inspect the Fully Automatic Washing Machine (Vol
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
