NISHA SINGLA vs ELECTRONIC CENTRE

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 13.11.2000 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II) delivered in Complaint Case No. 1324 of 1998, Mrs. Nisha Singla wife of Sh. Shiv Kumar Singla resident of House No. 1032, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh v. M/s. Electronic Centre, through its Branch Manager, SCO No. 306, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh and M/s. Electrolux (Intron Ltd.) through its Managing Director, 7-C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Sector 18, Gurgaon. The appellant/complainant purchased an Electrolux Washing Machine manufactured by respondent No. 2, M/s. Electrolux (Intron Ltd.) through respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 1, M/s. Electrolux Centre at Chandigarh on 18.12.1997 for a sum of Rs. 18,600/-. It was represented to the complainant, Mrs. Nisha Singla by the respondents that the said washing machine had the capacity of washing 5 kgs. clothes. The complainant found that the washing machine was incapable of washing 5 kgs. of dry clothes as represented to her and consequently she intimated this defect to the respondents orally as well as vide letter dated 11.5.1998 sent under Registered A.D. Post.

THE case of the complainant was that she had brought this defect to the notice of the opposite parties for being checked and removed by deputing an engineer from the local office of the Company. THE engineer, namely, Mr. Gopal visited the residence of the complainant/appellant and gave demonstration of washing the clothes on the said washing machine. It was alleged that at the time of giving the demonstration the stabilizer attached to the washing machine was burnt. After two to three days another engineer, namely, Mr. Vipin came to give demonstration and in the mid way of the demonstration he stopped the machine and changed one part called PCB and restarted the same. After the circle was complete the clothes were taken out and the result was not so disappointing. It was alleged that a day or two thereafter, the complainant/appellant, Mrs. Nisha Singla used the washing machine for washing the clothes but the results were highly disappointing. She, accompanied by her husband, approached the dealer, M/s. Electronic Centre and informed him that the machine had neither the capacity nor the performance as promised by him. The Electronic Centre promised to send an engineer from the Company''s office. Despite that none came from the Company to examine the washing machine. In second week of January i.e. on 7.1.1998, Mr. Vipin, an engineer of the Company came and went back after putting the clothes in the machine by advising the complainant to clean clothes on her own after doing pre wash. It was alleged that as per the advice, the clothes were washed the next day but the results were not only disappointing but disgusting. Accordingly, the said result was conveyed to the engineer on phone. The engineer aforesaid came to the house the same day and told the complainant that the clothes were extra dirty. Being dissatisfied with the inaction on the part of the O.Ps., the complainant sent a legal notice through Mr. S.P. Goyal, Advocate which is dated 12.10.1998 addressed to both the respondents calling upon them to get the machine back from the complainant and to refund the sum of Rs. 18,600/- with interest from 18.12.1997 and also to pay damages suffered by the complainant due to poor services. Thereafter, this complaint was filed.

Notice of the complaint was served on the opposite parties. O.P. No. 2 filed reply to the complaint case and took some preliminary objections regarding the complaint being wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law. It was also alleged that the complaint was a flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the opposite party No. 2. It was admitted that the said washing machine was having capacity to wash 5 kgs. dry clothes at one time. The opposite party No. 2, further alleged that its engineer visited the premises of the complainant on 12th and 14th of January, 1998 and 15th and 29th June, 1998 and on all these occasions there was non-cooperation of the complainant which was reflected from the job sheets of the engineer. It was further mentioned that on 15.6.1998 a complete demonstration of 5 kgs. dry clothes was given to the complainant as per the product''s catalogue. The opposite party No. 2 contended that there was no question of returning of the sum of Rs. 18,600/- along with the interest to the complainant and the compensation claimed is highly exaggerated, baseless and unreasonable.

THE complainant led evidence before the District Forum-II by filing a copy of the letter dated 11.5.1998, copy of the legal notice dated 12.10.1998 and copy of the call sheet. THE complainant filed her own affidavit in which she has deposed about the facts alleged in the complaint. THE opposite party No. 2, the manufacturer of the washing machine filed affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Jain, Senior Branch Manager and filed photo-copies of letter dated 5.1.1999 sent by opposite party No. 1, M/s. Electronic Centre, copy of call sheets regarding the visits of the engineer. The District Forum-II after considering the material placed on record held that on 15.6.1998 the grievance expressed by the complainant was attended to and in the column of job done in the call sheet it was mentioned that 5 kgs. dry clothes were put to wash after weighing these on the scale. The complete cycle was carried till spinning of clothes. The claimant/customer put her signatures in the column meant for the signatures of the customer and wrote that washing of the above referred clothes was not satisfactory. The District Forum-II held that even in the note appended by the customer, it was not stated that 5 kgs. dry clothes put in the washing machine were not washed or that the machine was unable to complete the cycle. All that is stated is that result was not satisfactory. The District Forum-II held that it was quite a vague term and no particular fault in the washing of the clothes had been pointed out to show how the result was unsatisfactory. In this view of the matter, the District Forum-II found the complaint baseless and dismissed it with a cost of Rs. 1,100/-.

THE complainant felt aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum-II and filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Upon issuance of notice to the respondents, the respondent No. 2 put in appearance through its Counsel, Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate. THE record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-II in triplicate. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.P. Goyal, Advocate and Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2. We have perused the impugned order of the District Forum-II and have gone through the record of the complaint case carefully. The main grievance of the complainant was that though the manufacturer/respondent No. 2 mentioned about the washing machine of being capable of washing 5 kgs. weight of dry clothes, yet the same was not demonstrated to be done by the washing machine purchased by her. There is an information leaflet on record of the complaint case under the heading "Know Your Electrolux Washing Machine" which shows that the maximum load that the machine can handle is 5 kgs. weight (Under Standard Test Conditions). It is not disputed that on the complaint made by the appellant, the Company deputed engineers to visit the residence of the complainant and on dates mentioned above and on June 15, 1998 the engineer deputed by the opposite party wrote in the column job done as under : "5 kgs. dry clothes were put to wash after weighing on a weighing scale and complete cycle was carried till spinning of clothes. The customer further wants that in case of any assistance a weekly or ten days visit should be given by Company''s representative."

In the column meant for customer signatures, the complainant wrote by hand as under : "As regards washing of above referred clothes results are not satisfactory." The date is mentioned as 15.6.1998 and time as 11 a.m. From the note appended by the appellant, it is not clear as to whether the washing machine was unable to cope with washing of 5 kgs. of dry clothes and the note appended by the person deputed by the opposite party in the column job done was incorrect. The endorsement made by the appellant is, thus vague and not clear with reference to the capacity of the washing machine to handle 5 kgs. of dry clothes for washing. This visit of the employee of the O.P. to give the demonstration was on 15.6.1998 which is subsequent to the letter dated 11.5.1998 sent by the complainant to the O.P./respondent. Since the grievance of the appellant was specifically with reference to washing machine not having the proclaimed capacity to wash 5 kgs. of dry clothes and the same was successfully demonstrated by the representative of the Company, the mere endorsement made by the appellant regarding the results of the washing of clothes being unsatisfactory does not amount to deficiency in service or any manufacturing defect in the washing machine aforesaid. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 gave all possible assistance and attended the call of the appellant in checking the washing machine. In these circumstances, the District Forum-II, in our considered view, rightly concluded that the complainant failed to show that there was any defect in the washing machine. The complaint, in our considered view was rightly dismissed. In our considered view the District Forum-II should not have burdened the complainant with costs of Rs. 1,100/-. It is a different matter that the complainant could not prove her allegations but it cannot be said that the complaint brought by the complainant was false or vexatious so as to burden the complainant with costs. The appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum-II dismissing the complaint is upheld. The order of the District Forum-II regarding the award of costs of Rs. 1,100/- to be paid to the opposite parties is set aside. However, the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the parties themselves. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal partly allowed.