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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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