INTRON LIMITED vs KM.PRIYA JAIN

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 10.11.2000, passed by District Forum No. II in Complaint Case No. 253/1996 - entitled Km. Priya Jain v. M/s. Intron Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the dispoal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Km. Priya Jain, a minor, through her natural guardian/father Shri B.R. Jain, had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring that the mother of Km. Priya Jain had purchased a washing machine, make Intron model, manufactured by the appellant, in her own name through M/s. Hindustan Traders, South Patel Nager, New Delhi on 29th January, 1993 for a sum of Rs. 17,000/- with a guarantee for three years from the date of purchase. It was stated that the abovesaid washing machine, so purchased, was used in accordance with the directions given in the Instruction Manual but the same started giving trouble right from the very beginning and during the period from 19th February, 1993 to 5th October, 1995 as many as 15 complaints regarding the defects in the said machine were lodged by the respondent with the appellant. It was stated that on 8.11.1994, the machine was taken to the workshop of the opposite party for repairs but when the same was delivered back, the same even then was a defective piece as the same created terrible noise and failed to work properly. It was stated that on 19.12.1995 a technician of the appellant in the Job Card gave the details of the defects in the above said machine stating M/C rusted, door rusted, cloth torn up, noise of motor etc. When the machine was not put in perfect working order, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that either the machine in question be got replaced or in the alternative the cost of the machine be paid back to the respondent together with interest. THE respondent also claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and in the written statement/written version filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the machine in question was always promptly attended to as and when any complaint was received. It was stated by the appellant in the written version/reply that the machine in question had only minor and routine defects. It was further stated that the appellants were ready and willing to repair the machine to the entire satisfaction of the respondent. The appellant in the written statement/written version denied the liability for the replacement of the machine in question.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the appellant had supplied a defective machine to the respondent and on the basis of the above findings has passed the order, being impugned in the present proceedings.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The purchase of the machine in question by the respondent with a warranty of three years on 29.1.1993 is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the machine in question developed defects as alleged by the respondent in the complaint. On a perusal of material on record, it is apparent that the machine in question required repairs only 20 days after its purchase and thereafter there were frequent trouble in the working of the machine and the machine had to be attended to by the technician of the appellant for the removal of the defects on good number of occasions which fact is evident from the Job Card itself. A ''consumer'' purchases brand new goods in the hope that the goods so purchased by him for consideration, would give him trouble free service at least for some reasonable period. In the present case, the machine in question started giving trouble within 20 days of its purchase and thereafter required repairs frequently. In the given facts, in our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infirmity. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint, filed by the respondent, before the District Forum was barred by limitation is also devoid of substance in the given facts as has been held by the District Forum also. In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.