J.K.Nagpal vs Sachdeva Electronics (P) Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.04.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 368 of 2010- J.K. Nagpal Vs. Sachdeva Electronics (P) Ltd. & Ors. by which, appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased L.G. Washing Machine on 23.1.2003 from OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 manufactured by OP No. 3/Respondent No. 3. Complainant also obtained AMC for the machine for a period of three years from 24.7.2006 to 23.7.2009 and paid Rs. 4321/ -. In August 2008, machine went out of order and complainant approached OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 Authorized Service Station of OP No. 3. OP No. 2 assured that repair will be made within 4 days, but in spite of several visits, washing machine has not been repaired. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for repair of washing machine and to extend AMC facility and to pay Rs.50,000/ - as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/ -. OP No. 1 did not contest complaint. OP Nos. 2 and 3 filed written statement and submitted that they are ready to repair washing machine free of cost and further submitted that AMC had been in collusion for a period of 3 years whereas AMC is given only for one year. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP No. 3 to refund AMC charges of Rs.4321/ - and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/ - and litigation of Rs.2,000/ - to the complainant. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record.

PETITIONER submitted that as washing machine has not been repaired, he was entitled to get back price of washing machine and learned District Forum has committed error in not allowing refund and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of complaint clearly reveals that in complaint, petitioner prayed for direction to OP to repair washing machine and extend AMC facility and further prayed for compensation for harassment and litigation cost. In complaint, he has not prayed for refund of price of washing machine. In such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get refund of price of the washing machine. Learned State Commission has observed in its order that petitioner has already refunded AMC amount of Rs.4321/ - along with compensation and cost imposed by District Forum. In such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get any more from the respondents and petitioner has unnecessarily filed this revision petition. This case is not fit for admission.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.