The court established that the appellant was deficient in services and liable to compensate the complainant for the damaged machine, deducting the repair charges from the assessed cost of the machine.

Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 15.9.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 174 of 2000. Briefly stated the facts as under :

2. The respondent/complainant Mr. Yogesh Chander, resident of 3045, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh in the second week of September, 1999 gave a Semi Automatic Washing Machine at the Shop No. 14 of appellant under the name and style of M/s. Kool Controls, Shop No. 14, Sector 41-D, Badheri, Badheri Market, Chandigarh. The appellant told the respondent/complainant that the machine required rewinding and same would be repaired within 2-3 days. An amount of Rs. 915/- was agreed to be paid by both the parties towards the rewinding charges. As per averments made by complainant/respondent the machine was not repaired on the promised date. The complainant/respondent has further averred that when his wife visited the appellant’s shop on many subsequent dates it was still not repaired consequently it kept lying in the shop of the appellant. The respondent/complainant has placed on record a Cash Memo/Bill dated 2.11.1999 bearing No. 575 (though the machine was handed over for repairing in September, 1999). The complainant further states that appellant on 13.2.2000 came to his house and asked him to take the machine. When the complainant/respondent went to the shop he noticed that the machine allegedly presented an ugly and worn out look, consequent to which the respondent/complainant refused to take the delivery of the same and the present complaint was instituted in the District Forum-II. The respondent/complainant has alleged that due to above stated deficient services of the appellant, his wife being an anaesthesia patient suffered attacks due to the exhaustion of washing clothes and he had to pay a lot of money to the servant to get his washing done. The complainant/respondent has averred, inter alia, that he did undergo agonies and mental tension for a period of four and a half months for which he has prayed to be suitably compensated.

3. The O.P./appellant, Mr. Rakesh Kumar in the written statement dated nil filed on 2.5.2000 as per office record, has submitted, inter alia, that the washing machine given by the complainant for repairs in the first week of July, 1999. The inner body made of plastic was eaten by the rats and was not in good condition. The O.P./appellant has further alleged that the upper part of the internal wall of the machine was pasted with adhesive at many places. The machine required rewinding and Rs. 915/- inclusive of labour charges were agreed upon by both the parties. The O.P./appellant has averred that the machine was duly repaired within 4 - 5 days. The complainant’s wife Mrs. Yogita came to his shop but since she did not pay the money, the machine could not be delivered to her. The appellant/O.P. has denied the averment of the complainant about his (O.P.) having visited the complainant/respondent and asked to take the machine after paying the charges of Rs. 915/-. On 2.11.1999, the appellant further alleged that the respondent/complainant secured a bill of Rs. 915/- on the plea of getting the same reimbursed but the machine was not returned due to the non-payment of charges on that date even.

4. During the proceedings in the District Forum-II on 26.7.2000, the O.P. was ordered to bring the machine to the Forum for examination. It was brought on 31.8.2000 and the District Forum-II observed the drum to be in a damaged condition. The District Forum held that the damage to the machine must have been caused while at the shop of O.P./appellant because had it been given in such a bad condition, the O.P./appellant would have certainly mentioned the same in the memo. On that count the O.P./appellant was held to be deficient in service and liable to compensate the complainant/respondent by paying Rs. 6,000/- towards the