METRO APPLIANCES LTD. vs SATISH KAUSHIK

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 21.11.2999, passed by District Forum-I in Complaint Case No. 1332/2000 entitled Shri Satish Kaushik v. M/s. Metro Appliances Ltd.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the respondent Shri Satish Kaushik, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that in November, 1999, he had visited the Exhibition held at-Pragati Maidan, New Delhi and the representative of the appellant induced and misrepresented to the respondent and his wife stating that Ortem Induction Cooking System (for short ''Cooking System''), a product of the respondent was a time tested and a fast means of preparing food, did not cause any pollution and works swiftly by means of pressing a button only. It was stated that on the above representation, made on behalf of the appellant, the respondent booked the above said Cooking System by giving an advance of Rs, 300/- vide receipt No. 94 dated 20.11.1999. THE balance amount of Rs. 8,400/- was paid by the appellant vide invoice No. 68 dated 27.12.1999 at the time of taking the delivery of the Cooking System. It was stated that the respondent thus had purchased the above said Cooking System for a total consideration of Rs. 8,700/- and at the time of purchase of the said cooking system, a warranty card was also issued, by the appellant to the complainant with life long service at Bahadurgarh, which was the place of the resident of the respondent also. It was further stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent that immediately two days after the purchase, the said Cooking System developed snags and became inoperative/non- functional. The respondent immediately informed the appellant on telephone and thereafter vide registered letter 28.1.2000 requested the appellant to take back the cooking system. It was stated that the defect in the system was rectified after 36 days but unfortunately, the system again went out of order after working for few days. The respondent addressed another letter dated 7.2.2000 to the appellant expressing his dissatisfaction regarding the working of said Cooking System and requested the appellant either to fully rectify the defects or to take back the Cooking System. It was stated that the appellant vide letter dated 19.6.2000 informed the respondent that defects in the machine had been rectified. On receiving the above said information, the respondent came to Delhi on 23.6.2000 and collected the machine but to the utter shock of the respondent, it was noticed by him after reaching his place of residence that the machine was not working properly. The respondent immediately vide another letter dated 26.6.2000 informed the appellant about the non- functioning of the machine and on 29.6.2000 again handed over the said machine to the appellant for rectifying the defects. It was stated by the respondent that on the assurance of the appellant that all defects had been rectified, respondent again came to Delhi in the 1st week of July, 2000 and took back the machine but. found that the machine was not working properly and in fact was not cooking at all. The respondent again informed the appellant about the defects and handed over the defective machine to the respondent on 29.7.2000. It was stated that the respondent had purchased the above said machine with the sole object tn enable his wife and himself to carry out cooking in the early hours of morning at a fast speed but the same did not serve any purpose and had caused great mental and physical tension to the respond? it and his family members. It was prayed that the appellant be directed to replace the defective Cooking System or to return Rs. 8,700/- being the cost price of the machine. The respondent also claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with cost of the proceedings.

The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant before the District Forum was that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and, as and when, the machine was brought the same was repaired by the appellant.

THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and has directed the appellant to replace the defective machine with a new piece. THE appellant was also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. It was also directed that in case it was not possible to replace the defective cooking system in that event, the appellant had been directed to refund the sum of Rs. 8,700/-, being the cost of the Cooking System, together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realisation. THE appellant has also been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. It is not in dispute that the Cooking System in question, a product of the appellant, was purchased by respondent Shri Satish Kaushik on 27.12.1999 for a total consideration of Rs. 8,700/- with a life long service warranty. On the basis of material on record, it is also apparent that the Cooking System, purchased by the respondent, from the appellant, did not function properly right from the very beginning and there were intermitant snags in the machine as a result of which respondent had to approach the appellant for the repair Of the machine in question on a number of occasions. A consumer purchases a product in the hope that the same would give satisfactory service to him at least for a reasonable time. In the instant case, right from the date of purchase, the Cooking System started giving problems and the respondent had to approach the appellant on a number of occasions for having the same repaired which must have caused considerable inconvenience and avoidable expense to the consumer. In our opinion, in the given facts, the order being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.