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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more