|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHEN the microwave oven in AL Manchanda's house went out of order, little did he realise that it would be the beginning of a long legal battle for justice. The repair work undertaken by the mechanic was so shoddy and sub-standard that Manchanda decided that he would not allow him to get away with such service. So he sought the intervention of the consumer court and eventually, emerged victorious. The story goes backs to January, 2004, when the microwave oven stopped functioning. Manchanda, a resident of west Delhi, took it to an electronic shop engaged in the repair of such goods and got it repaired, or so he thought. Anyway, he paid Rs 2,200 towards the repair, which included the cost of the front panel membrane that was required to be replaced and the service charges. However, within just four days of bringing it back home, the oven stopped functioning once again. This time Manchanda was quite unhappy with the service and told the service provider as such, and was promised that it would be repaired in no time. However, after keeping the machine for 25 days, the mechanic returned it on the ground that he could not get the spare parts. Thereafter, Manchanda got it checked up by another mechanic, who told him that the first mechanic had replaced some of the original parts. Taken aback by this information, this time Manchanda took it to an authorised service centre and got it repaired. The service centre had to change several parts, including the front panel membrane, and charged Manchanda, Rs 4,415. Upset with these developments, he filed a case against the electronic shop owner for rendering deficient service and also for unfair trade practice. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum awarded him Rs 15,000. But unfortunately, the case dragged on because the person against whom he had filed the case refused to accept the verdict and filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and later, the national commission. His main argument before the highest court was the microwave had gone out of order the second time because of violent voltage fluctuations in the power supply and he was not responsible for it. After perusing the case, the apex court dismissed the contention of the first mechanic. Referring to the job sheet issued by the authorised service centre, it said that the same spare part, namely the front panel membrane which had been changed by him, had to be replaced once again at the service centre, thereby pointing to deficiency in the service provided by the first mechanic. It also pointed out that there was no evidence whatsoever to show the attempts made by the mechanic to contact the authorised service centre to get the genuine spare parts, as claimed by him. Given these circumstances, it did not find any irregularity in the order of the lower consumer courts. The case highlights two main issues—one, of course, is the fact that a consumer can file a case against deficient service rendered by a mechanic or a person providing after-sales-service and get compensation through the court. The other indirect inference is that it is always better to go to the authorised service centre of the company for repairs. This way one can also be assured of genuine spare parts being used. However, every small town does not have an authorised centre and, therefore, consumers are forced to seek the help of other electronic repair shops. In such an eventuality, check the reputation of the shop and always keep the receipt for any payment made. Also, get in writing the problem detected, the rectification done and the spare parts used. Ask the mechanic to mention the brand of the spare part used so that you can be sue that the genuine one has been used. All new spare parts carry a warranty or a guarantee. So get those guarantee cards, too. Ask for all the replaced parts and keep them. If despite all these precautions, you have a problem with the repaired product and the service centre refuses to redress it, remember, courts are there to help you out.
|
||
|
|
||
