KANCHAN VERMA vs WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 26.7.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as District Forum).

THE appellant is the complainant who filed Complaint Case No. 409 of 2003 against Whirlpool of India Limited and three others praying that the respondents be directed to refund of Rs. 13,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase i.e., 8.11.2001 till payment and further to pay compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental and physical harassment. In nutshell, the grievance of the complainant was that the washing machine, which was purchased vide Bill No. 760 (C-1) suffered from manufacturing defect and some times it would not start at all and some times it would stop working all of a sudden. The complainant apprise the respondent No. 2-Jatinder Electronics, SCO No. 2439, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh about the said defects in the washing machine but the complainant was advised to contact respondent No. 3- Supreme Electro-Mech Pvt. Ltd. (authorised Service Centre), Plot No. 78, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh. It was authorised service station of the manufacturer-Whirlpool of India Limited. Despite taking the washing machine for repairs on several occasions, the same did not function properly as it had manufacturing defect. A representation was made on 30.11.2003 vide copy Annexure C-5, which was sent to the respondent No. 3 - Supreme Electro-Mech Pvt. Ltd. aforesaid. The manufacturer/respondent No. 1 informed the complainant that the complaint had been forwarded to the Supervisor at Chandigarh. A reminder was sent through a N.G.O. called Consumer Forum on 16.10.2003 (Copy Annexure C-7) but there was no response from the respondents.

Notice of the complaint was served on the O.Ps. O.P. Nos. 1 and 4 filed joint written statement while O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear despite notice and were proceeded ex parte. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 4 in their written statement alleged that the complainant had intentionally concealed the material facts and necessary information. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 4 after filing the written statement absented themselves and the complaint was proceed ex parte against them. The complainant led her evidence and filed detailed affidavit wherein the averments made in the complaint case were verified on oath. The complainant also filed documents referred to above.

THE District Forum held that the washing machine purchased by the appellant/complainant from the respondents was having manufacturing defect. THE complaint was accordingly allowed with a direction to O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to take the washing machine back from the appellant and to refund a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to her besides Rs. 2,000/- as costs of litigation. THE amount awarded as refund and costs were directed to be paid within two months failing which the amount of compensation. which in the instant case is the amount of refund, would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order i.e., 26.7.2004. THE District Forum deducted a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from the price of the washing machine on the ground that the appellant had used the washing machine for a period of about two years before filing the complaint and the period of two years had further increased by another eight months. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum was not justified in applying cut off Rs. 3,000/- as the washing machine at no stage function properly. It may be, however, be pointed out that the District Forum after perusing the material placed on record, recorded a clear finding that the appellant had used the washing machine over a period of two years prior to filing the complaint during which period, she noticed various defects, which were brought to the notice of the respondents who attempted to repair the washing machine but the same could not be made fully functional. This clearly shows that the machine was used by the appellant during this period and the District Forum has, in our considered opinion, was right in ordering the refund of Rs. 10,000/-.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the interest ought to have been awarded from the date the machine was purchased i.e., from 8.11.2001. We find no merit in this contention. THE District Forum has rightly awarded interest and no interference is called for in the impugned order. THE appeal is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.