INTRON LIMITED Vs. PRIYA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 10.11.2000, passed by District Forum No. II in Complaint Case No.253/1996 - entitled Km. Priya Jain V/s. M/s. Intron Limited.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the dispoal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Km. Priya Jain, a minor, through her natural guardian/father Shri B. R. Jain, had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Sec.12 of the Act averring that the mother of Km. Priya Jain had purchased a washing machine, make Intron model, manufactured by the appellant, in her own name through M/s. Hindustan Traders, South Patel Nager, New Delhi on 29th January, 1993 for a sum of Rs.17,000/- with a guarantee for three years from the date of purchase. It was stated that the abovesaid washing machine, so purchased, was used in accordance with the directions given in the Instruction Manual but the same started giving trouble right from the very beginning and during the period from 19th February, 1993 to 5th October, 1995 as many as 15 complaints regarding the defects in the said machine were lodged by the respondent with the appellant. It was stated that on 8.11.1994, the machine was taken to the workshop of the opposite party for repairs but when the same was delivered back, the same even then was a defective piece as the same created terrible noise and failed to work properly. It was stated that on 19.12.1995 a technician of the appellant in the Job Card gave the details of the defects in the above said machine stating M/c rusted, door rusted, cloth torn up, noise of motor etc. When the machine was not put in perfect working order, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that either the machine in question be got replaced or in the alternative the cost of the machine be paid back to the respondent together with interest. The respondent also claimed damages to the extent of Rs.10,000/-.

(3.) The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and in the written statement/written version filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the machine in question was always promptly attended to as and when any complaint was received. It was stated by the appellant in the written version/reply that the machine in question had only minor and routine defects. It was further stated that the appellants were ready and willing to repair the machine to the entire satisfaction of the respondent. The appellant in the written statement/written version denied the liability for the replacement of the machine in question.