If grievance is to avoid payment, forum can put consumer to test

A consumer must come with clean hands. If there is some suspicion that the grievance is not genuine but to avoid making payment, the forum can direct the consumer to prove his bona fides by depositing the amount with the forum.
Case Study: Dr Hemant Kulkarni, a medical doctor with a consulting room at Margao, Goa for 15 years, came across an “audiometry testing cabin” supplied by A N Enterprises, Kolhapur, to Abbott India, a pharmaceutical company which had retained him as its factory medical officer.Such a cabin is used to reduce the noise level to conduct audiograms.
Kulkarni wanted A N Enterprises to make a similar, but smaller cabin for his consulting room. The price was fixed at Rs 80,000, inclusive of taxes, freight, and installation charges, with an initial payment of Rs 25,000.
There was a dispute about the payment of the balance amount. While Kulkarni wanted to pay the amount at his convenience, the firm claimed that it would be payable immediately on installation.
Kulkarni paid the initial amount of Rs 25,000 and another Rs 7,000 towards freight. The cabin was installed, acknowledged through satisfactory installation and completion certificate. He claimed the cabin could not be checked for want of cables, but the firm claimed that he had signed the completion certificate after checking the cabin.
Subsequently, he complained that there was no significant reduction of noise inside the cabin as compared to the room outside; on the contrary, the exhaust fan considerably increased the ambient sound inside the cabin. He asked the company to measure the noise level in the cabin and to paint it with rust-proof paint. Otherwise, he wanted the cabin taken back, his money refunded and his consulting room restored to its original state. Also, he specified that the cabin noise level be less than 40 dB and sound baffles be installed for the exhaust fan.
As the firm would not comply, Kulkarni complained to the district forum. Later, he tendered the firm’s website brochure, arguing that the cabin was installed, but not commissioned. The firm pointed out that Kulkarni had satisfied himself about the quality and efficacy of audiometry cabins before ordering one, but was making excuses to avoid paying the balance amount.
The forum upheld his contention and ordered the firm to remove the defects or take back the cabin and refund the down payment.
The Goa state commission observed that Kulkarni had not produced evidence to show the noise level in his cabin, and no expert opinion was obtained.
The forum had also overlooked his satisfaction report. So the state commission appointed a commissioner, who found that the noise in the cabin was less than 40dBs when the fan was off, and within the threshold of 60dBs when the fan was on.
It observed that Kulkarni’s conduct indicated that he was trying to avoid paying the balance amount.
By its order of June 22, 2015 the state commission held equity required Kulkarni to prove his bona fides by depositing the balance amount of Rs 48,000 along with 6% interest, after which the firm would replace the fan to bring down the noise level to below 40dBs.
Conclusion: A consumer cannot make wild allegations to avoid making payment. In case of doubt, his bona fides can be put to the test so that the interests of both parties are protected.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e mail is jehangir.gai.articles@hotmail.com)