Complainant No Longer Remains 'Consumer' If Product In Dispute Is Sold Off: West Delhi District Commission

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a fully automatic washing machine of Godrej Make (“Godrej”) from M/s Kapila Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (“Seller”) for Rs. 21,500/-. After about seven years of use, the Complainant lodged an online complaint with Godrej regarding an error message displaying "E7C" and the machine failing to complete its wash cycle. Penguin Services (“Service Provider”) attended the complainant's home and charged Rs. 403/- for visiting charges. The Complainant was informed that an electric wire had burned and was replaced. He was further advised to run the machine for four hours and report if the issue persisted. However, the Complainant soon received an SMS from Godrej estimating Rs. 5,500/- for further repairs. When the Complainant used the machine again, it caught fire. Despite this, Godrej closed the original complaint without the Complainant's response and without obtaining the necessary secret code. Consequently, the Complainant lodged a second complaint.

The second complaint was attended to by the same Service Provider. The attending engineer informed the Complainant that the fire occurred due to water dripping onto the water heating unit from a leaking wash tub. He also informed the Complainant that the washing machine was irreparable and that its parts were no longer available, recommending the purchase of a new washing machine. As a result, the Complainant bought a new washing machine from M/s Croma (“Croma”) on the same day for Rs. 20,090/-. The Complainant exchanged emails with Godrej. Godrej asserted that the attending engineer had given the repair estimate, but the Complainant had refused the repairs and opted to buy a new machine instead.

Later, Godrej sent another email to the Complainant and claimed that the fire had occurred because rats had bitten the heater wire and that water dripping onto the heating unit was the likely cause of the fire. This explanation contradicted the earlier diagnosis. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant sent a legal notice to Godrej. After getting no resolution for the same, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, West Delhi (“District Commission”).

Contentions of the Parties:

The Complainant argued that during the first visit, the engineer had confirmed the washing machine to be in working condition after replacing the burned wire yet failed to identify the actual underlying issue. Despite this, Godrej later sent a repair estimate of Rs. 5,500/- through SMS, adding to the Complainant's grievances.

On the other hand, Godrej contended that there was no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint was not maintainable due to lack of cause of action.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission observed that during the oral submissions, the Complainant admitted that he had disposed of the washing machine in question. He stated that since the washing machine had become useless and he had purchased a new one, he sold the old machine as scrap. In this regard, the District Commission referred to M/S. Honda Cars India Ltd. vs. Jatinder Singh Madan [Revision Petition No. 2622/2012] and Ramesh vs. Skoda Auto India P. Ltd & Ors [2019 SCC Online NCDRC 465], where the NCDRC held that once the complainant no longer possesses the product in dispute, the complaint becomes infructuous as they are no longer considered a 'consumer.'

Based on these precedents, the District Commission concluded that the Complainant lacked the legal standing to pursue the case, as the washing machine had been sold during the proceedings. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

Case Title: Umesh Kaushik vs Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Case No.: CC NO. 686/2017

Advocate for the Complainant: Mr Rakesh Gupta

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Mohd. Ashraf

Date of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order