Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

 

3. It transpires from the records of the trial forum that prior to admission, the District Forum referred the matter to Lok Adalat held on 25-04-2008. Pursuant to the Lok Adalat the opposite party inspected the microwave oven and replaced with a new piece. The complainant alleges that there was a mix up in the oven supplied to him and that he had been supplied with a wrong model. However the complainant was not satisfied with its performance and felt that the oven was defective at product design level itself. With respect to the air conditioner, according to the complainant, the excessive noise was due to faulty installation and the same was re-done. However, new different sounds began emanating thereafter and as a result the complainant was unable to use the air conditioner.

 

4. As stated earlier, as regards the microwave oven, the District Forum found that no deficiency in service could be attributed to the opposite party for an alleged defect at the product designed level. As regards the air conditioner, a direction was given to properly install the equipment and insure that unnatural noise does not persist.

 

5. When the matter was taken up for admission, we heard the appellant Shri Vijay Kapoor in person. Records and proceedings of the trial forum were called for and perused. Admittedly the microwave oven was replaced on/around 27-04-2008. As per the progress report filed by the complainant, he is dissatisfied with the replacement and has alleged that it appears that the oven is defective at the product design level itself. In such circumstances the manufacturer of the microwave oven ought to have been impleaded as a party and the District Forum rightly opined that the opposite party dealer could not be held guilty of deficiency-in-services. As regards the air conditioner, the problem apparently lay with improper installation and necessary directions have been issued by the District Forum in this regard. It is not the appellants case that the product is defective. It is also not his case that installation of the air conditioner was part of the services promised to be rendered by the opposite party; at least the documentary evidence produced by the complainant does not indicate this position. In our view, in these circumstances, replacement of the air conditioner is not called for and the direction to rectify the noise caused by faulty installation is adequate to meet the ends of justice.