Skip to content


S.A. Bagayatkar Vs. Suvidha Trading Corporation - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided On

Case Number

Appeal No. 5 of 1990

Judge

Appellant

S.A. Bagayatkar

Respondent

Suvidha Trading Corporation

Excerpt:


consumer protection act, 1986 - sectionn 14(1)(c) - comparative citation: 1991 (2) cpj 627.....the condition of washing machine. (5) moreover, the order of the district forum shows that there is no consideration of the prayer of complainant to refund the price and to return the washing machine to the opposite party. the complainant repeated his grievance before us that he wants the refund of price. the district forum acted solely on the proposal of opposite party contained in letter dated 23.3.1990. under these circumstances, the impugned order requires to be set aside. (6) we therefore allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of district forum and remand the complaint to the district forum bombay to hear the parties and to decide the complaint afresh in the light of the prayer of complainant. the documents filed by opposite party are sent alongwith the record for consideration. no costs. a copy of this order be sent to both parties free of costs. appeal allowed.

Judgment:


G.G. Loney, President:

(1) Dissatisfied with the impugned order of District Forum, Bombay, the Consumer preferred this appeal.

(2) According to appellant the Washing Machine he purchased from respondent, went out of order immediately. He further alleged that despite the replacement of motor thrice by respondent, the machine was not giving him service and hence it was defective. He made complaints to the respondent, to Police and to Home Department. Ultimately filed the complaint before the District Forum, Bombay and claimed back the price of machine Rs. 5,500 and to take back the machine.

(3) It appears from record that the Opposite Party did not file the say to the notice sent by District Forum under Section 13 dated 7.2.90 within thirty days, but on 23.3.90 sent a proposal to advise the complainant to purchase a 1/4th H.P. Motor with an assurance to refund its cost. The District Forum without ascertaining the prayer of complainant to refund the price of machine acted on the aforesaid proposal of Opposite Party.

(4) The appellant and his duly authorized Agent Shri A.M. Mascarenhas, and Shri L.R. Sharma for respondent were heard. Shri Sharma produced Nine memorandums containing visits of his mechanics for purposes of attending to the complaints of appellant as regards the Washing Machine in dispute. Perusal of those documents show that the appellants have signed them and at some places endorsements are made showing the condition of Washing Machine.

(5) Moreover, the order of the District Forum shows that there is no consideration of the prayer of complainant to refund the price and to return the Washing Machine to the Opposite Party. The complainant repeated his grievance before us that he wants the refund of price. The District Forum acted solely on the proposal of opposite party contained in letter dated 23.3.1990. Under these circumstances, the impugned order requires to be set aside.

(6) We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of District Forum and remand the complaint to the District Forum Bombay to hear the parties and to decide the complaint afresh in the light of the prayer of complainant. The documents filed by Opposite Party are sent alongwith the record for consideration. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to both parties free of costs. Appeal allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //