State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Talagang Cooperative Group Housing ... vs Vandana Sharma, on 5 March, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 05-03-2008 Appeal No. FA-08/91 (Arising out of Order dated 13-11-2007 passed by the District Forum (N/W), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2277/2006) The Talagang Cooperative Group Housing Limited, Plot No. 49, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi 110085. . . . Appellant Versus Ms. Vandana Sharma, Flat No.721, Neelkanth Apartments, Talagang Cooperative Group Housing Limited, Plot No. 49, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi 110085. . . . Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT MS. RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. On account of having sold a defective Air conditioner to the respondent, the District Forum, vide impugned Order dated 28-12-2007 directed the appellant to return the amount received by it minus Rs. 2008-00 on the return of Air conditioner by the respondent and also Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the respondent failed to produce any evidence that the Air conditioner was suffering from any manufacturing defects and moreover the respondent did not allow the mechanic of the appellant to enter into the house to remove the defects.
2. The complaint of the respondent before the District Forum in brief was that A to A.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the reply sent by the appellant to the legal notice as well as also to the job cards wherein the gas problem was being referred for rectification. According to the appellant the leakage of gas was not a manufacturing defect as the leakage of gas does not imply that the unit is defective which can be due to--------------------------------------------- re-filling of the gas-----------so far as warranty ------unit works -------. Consumable and
-------------others are not covered under warranty and are chargeable from the customer.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Air conditioner was not functioning properly due to leakage of gas often. A consumer purchases a brand new product with a view that he will not face any inconvenience or hardship with it, which is expected of a second or third hand product and if he has to call the trader or service provider time and again to remove one defect or the other and also is not in a position to enjoy the fruits of a brand new product or article, he suffers mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, physical discomfort and in some cases loss of business and financial loss as well. It is a misconceived notion that the goods unless suffers from manufacturing defects cannot be replaced or the price cannot be refunded. The quality and standard of every goods has to be tested on the anvil of definition of the word deficiency as defined by Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act which means, _________________________________
5. In the instant case, the main problem was of leakage of gas and the explanation of the appellant that this is due to atmospheric pressure or lack of power supply in the house of the respondent or that the it was to be installed at a higher level etc. does not have any force or relevance with the goods such as an air conditioner. To expect a consumer to produce an expert witness to prove the manufacturing defect is too much. Once the consumer shows certain defects in the brand new article, the onus lies on the manufacturer or service provider or trader, as the case may be, to prove that it does not suffer from any such manufacturing defect.
6. After having found the goods defective in terms of Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the Act, the District Forum, has discretion to direct the trader or service provider to do one or -----------the following:-
i) remove the defects from the goods
ii) replace
iii) return
iv) pay
7. In such type of case we have taken a view that the dispute between a consumer and trader should always be ended once for all and order for removal of defects or replacement goods with similar goods is not in the interests of the consumer as the removal of defects being not to the satisfaction of the consumer and the newly replaced goods also not suffering from the defects cannot be ruled out.
Such types of orders give rise to a second or third bout of litigation. The pragmatic way to end all the disputes is to order for return of the price, i.e. as provided under sub-section (c) of Sec. 14 of the Act.
8. The foregoing reasons persuade us to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits.
9. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Impugned Orders shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of these orders.
10. Copy of Orders, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released under proper receipt.
14. Copy of Orders, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
15. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released under proper receipt.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK