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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more