Skip to main content

Washing machine company made to pay

The Goa state consumer disputes redressal commission has upheld the order of the South Goa district forum which ordered a washing machine company to pay 30,000 to an aggrieved consumer along with 5,000 as costs.

A recent order by commission president N A Britto and member Jagdish Prabhudesai upheld the forum's order which had directed Whirlpool India Ltd to pay Teddy da Silva of Nagoa, Verna, 15,000 as refund for a defective washing machine, 15,000 as compensation, and 5,000 as costs.

The order follows an appeal by the company against the forum's order.

The case dates to July 2011 when da Silva bought one washing machine and one fridge for his brother.

The washing machine was worth 25,333.

It stopped working within two days and was exchanged on July 25, 2011, for another washing machine costing 15,300. The previous washing machine was for 7kg of clothes while the second was for 6.5kg.

The new washing machine also broke down within 10 days and the dealer was asked to repair the same.

The dealer did send his technician to repair the machine but despite several attempts, failed to resolve the problem.

Da Silva had to undergo a lot of difficulties and hardships and had to even buy another washing machine of another make, as this company failed to repair or exchange their washing machine.

Da Silva finally complained to the district forum in July 2013.

Though notices were served on the company and its dealer, they chose not to file their response though they were represented by a lawyer. The commission noted that the company repeatedly sought time to file their reply.

The commission further noted that the company failed to repair the washing machine despite three notices from the complainant.

The commission noted that in case there was any deficiency in service on the part of the company's advocate then they were free to proceed against the advocate, but for that the complainant, who is a consumer, could not be made to suffer.

Noting that the company failed to pursue the matter before the district forum, the commission observed that it has become very easy and convenient for a litigant to shift the entire blame on its previous counsel without rhyme or reason.

The commission therefore upheld the forum's order and ordered the company to pay the refund, compensation and costs.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/Washing-machine-company-made-to-pay/articleshow/38575499.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil