IMPORTANT POINT
Where machine developed defect after 4-5 days of repair and same defect was repeated which opposite party had repaired but opposite party failed to carry out repair it would constitute deficiency in service.

S.K. Naik, Member—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.

2. 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.2,200 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 1.9.05 for arguments.”

5. Since this order clearly st