VOLTAS LIMITED Vs. S P VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the complaint of S. P. Vij, a resident of Punjab University Enclave, Sector 14, Chandigarh, the District Forum-II, Chandigarh ordered on 6.10.1999 refund of Rs.24,250/- with interest and costs in respect of the washing machine which was found unsatisfactory. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the complainant purchased one Voltas Mega Laundrette which was described as a fully automatic washing machine on payment of Rs.24,250/- in cash on 29.11.1995 (Annexure C-1 ). It was installed the next day on 30.11.1995 but from the very beginning it started mal-functioning and invariably failed to wash the clothes leaving dirt thereupon and detergent as well on the clothes. It was specifically alleged in the complaint that in fact it stopped functioning during its operation and was required to be activated again and again. Several complaints were made but the representatives of the Company failed to locate and rectify the fault. The complainant was disappointed on account of poor response from the dealer/manufacturer and ultimately instituted the complaint on 27.2.1996.

(3.) The complaint is supported by a detailed affidavit of Dr. S. P. Vij, the complainant, Professor in the Department of Botany, Punjab University, Chandigarh. The important paras 6 and 7 from the affidavit of the complainant are reproduced as under : "6. That the machine was delivered on 29.11.1995 itself but the same could not be installed as the Service Engineer of the Company Mr. A. Roy wanted us to get the necessary masonry and plumbing job to be done and after the said jobs were got done at the expense of the deponent/complainant, the machine was installed on 30.11.1995 and right from the day of the installation, the said machine had started malfunctioning and had invariably failed to wash the clothes clean, leaving dirt and detergent on them. It even stopped functioning during its operation and was required to be reactivised again by switching off and resetting for another cycle of full operation. Since the machine had been malfunctioning from the very day of its installation, the deponent/complainant informed the dealer about the same and also the Area Sales Manager of the Company the very next day. Since no action was taken on the complaint of the deponent/complainant, the deponent/complainant made a complaint in writing vide its letter dated 5.12.1995 under UPC. The said complaint is Ex. C2 and the postal certificate is Ex. C-3.7. That on the complaint of the deponent/complainant the Company deputed Mr. A. Roy and Mr. Naresh Razdan as their representatives to identify and rectify the fault. When they failed to identify and rectify the fault they assured that they would recommend either the replacement of the machine or its full refund since they felt that the machine was having some major manufacturing defect which could not be rectified. "