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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...