IMPORTANT POINT
Replacement of Machine – Opposite Parties cannot be directed to replace the machine with new one since it was used by the Complainant for 10 months from January 2012 to November 2012 when the first complaint was lodged by the Complainant with them.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Petitioner/Complainant, is to the Order dated 03.10.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 21/2016. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission reversing the Order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No. 237/2013, has allowed the Appeal filed by the Opposite Party/Respondent herein and dismissed the Complaint of the Petitioner.

2. Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, as culled out from the Complaint, are that the Complainant purchased a Dishwasher Neptune Dx Machine manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 from Opposite Party No.2 for 28,000/- on 12.01.2012, having extended warranty of 2 years from 12.01.2012 to 12.01.2014. Complainant also incurred a sum of 2,482/- for purchasing additional extended warranty for 2 years from 12.01.2014 to 11.01.2016. The said Dishwasher was delivered and installed at Complainant’s residence by Respondent No.2 after delay of 6-7 days from the date of its purchase. It is stated by the Complainant that the Dishwasher was not working properly since the very first day from the its purchase. The Complainant made several complaints to Respondent No.1 from November 2012 till February, 2013, however, default in the Dishwasher could not be fixed. It is further stated that on the advice of a visiting Engineer of Respondent No.1 that the defect might be due to less water pressure, the Complainant spent 15,000/- for purchasing Pressure Pump in order to maintain requisite water pressure, however, the problem still persisted. Subsequently, a Senior Engineer of Respondent No.1 on visit and inspection of Dishwater stated that Error F5 is occurring in the Machine. Vide letter dated 15.03.2013, the Respondent No.1 informed the Complainant that there is Error F5 occurring in machine which is not traceable at Complainant’s residence and machine is required to be brought at Service Centre for further diagnosis. A proposal was also made to provide Stand By Machine to the Complainant. The machine was lifted by the Respondent No. 1 on 02.04.2013 and a Stand By Machine was given to the Complainant. Vide letter dated 12.04.2013, the Respondent No.1 informed the Complainant that all the components of the machine had been tested in the Branch Service Centre and the machine is found in ok condition. Complainant before the accepting the repaired machine, requested the Respondent No.1 to give an undertaking that in case of any future defect, they would replace the machine. However, the Respondent No.1 refused to give the said undertaking as a result of which the Complainant also refused to return the stand-by machine.

3. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint no 237 of 2013 before the District Forum, inter alia, alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein thereby causing harassment, hardships, humiliation and mental agony to the Complainant.

4. Upon notice, the Complaint was resisted by the Respondent No.1 on the ground that the Complainant has filed a false and frivolous Complaint since the Complainant never accepted the Dishwasher, which was attempted to be returned on 11.04.2013 after due repair. Instead the Complainant has withheld the Stand By Machine and refused to return the same. The Respondent No.1 further stated that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed due to lack of cause of action.

5. Upon appraisal of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that admittedly there was a defect in the Complainant’s washing machine which the Opposite Party could not diagnose at Complainant’s residence and delivered back the same to the complainant’s satisfaction. Accordingly,