AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an appeal preferred by the Appellant M/s. Indian Sewing Machine Co. Ltd. against the judgment passed by Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F. case No. 714/92 dated 9.9.92.
THE core of the fact is that the Respondent herein purchased a sewing machine from the appellant of 27.6.90 at Rs. 3.464.55P. THE Respondent used the said machine for about two years and just before nine days of the expiry of warranty period sent the machine to the show room of the appellant for repair. THE appellant company in their written statement specifically denied that the machine has any manufacturing defects and/or any other defects whatsoever. But on perusal of the ma tier and the submission made by the Ld. Advocates of both sides it is apparent that the machine was sent by the respondent as earlyas6.12.91 to the show room of the Appellant for repair before it was finally deposited on 17.6.92 to the Appellant. THEreafter the Respondent filed a case in C.D.F. on 22.6.92. Further, neither of the parties could satisfy the Commission by producing the documents on after-sales service or repairs undertaken within the warranty period and the reasons for holding the machine so far in the custody of the Appellant except oral submissions. Be that as it may, in such case we have no other alternative but to depend on such submissions only.
It is also to be noted that the appeal was preferred as early as 17.9.92. Thereafter the appellant (Company) did not refer any copy of the appeal petition to the respondent as per Section 13 of CP Act, 1986 and on the 4th day of the hearing of the matter the Commission was pleased to dismiss the appeal petition as per rule 8(b) of the W.B. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 as the appellant failed to appear on 21.12.92. Again the matter was restored on the prayer of the Appellant and date was fixed on 10.2.93 for hearing. On 23.2.93 in presence of both sides the appeal was heard in details.
FROM the foregoing facts it is very clear that the appellant (company) did not approach the Commission with clean hands to settle the dispute, save and except the policy of daily-dally tactics, to harass the consumer. This position becomes more strong when it appears that the machine in question was deposited in the show room of the appellant (company) which is clearly suggestive of the fact that the machine was defective. We therefore, order that the O.P. shall replace the sewing machine with a new one and demonstrate the operation of the same to the satisfaction of the consumer with a fortnight time from the date of communication of the order. O.P. will also pay an amount of Rs. 500/- towards compensation for harassment and suffering of the respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.