BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.178 of 2015
Date of Institution : 9.10.2015
Date of Decision : 28.2.2017
Atma Ram son of Shri Roshan Lal, resident of village Jodhkan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Anil Bartan Store, Ding Mandi, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Partner.
2. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Limited, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079, India through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. P.K. Bagria, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Kapil Dev, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief is that complainant purchased one refrigerator model No. MEXICAN RED GDE 2681 110200283 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.16,290/- (Rs.14,400/- as price and Rs.1890/- as vat) vide cash invoice No.000038 dated 11.4.2012 with guarantee/ warrantee of five years of compressor and one year warrantee of complete refrigerator. That the refrigerator since from the day of its purchase was giving troubles to the complainant. There was problem in the compressor of refrigerator and its cooling was very much low and besides this the freezer was not working properly as the same was freezing the water very slow. Besides above defects, there was major defect in the compressor. The complainant immediately approached the op no.1 and on complaint op no.1 got checked the defects in the refrigerator through his own mechanic who detected the defects and clarified all the defects in the refrigerator to op no.1. The op no.1 cleverly put off the matter simply saying that complainant is not required to worry and assured him that he will himself convey the company and will get replacement of refrigerator with one and thereafter op no.1 kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also went to the shop of op no.1 with some respectable of the area and in the presence he stated that within few days he would definitely got replaced the refrigerator from company but again op no.1 did not take any action. Thereafter, on his strict complaint, op no.1 talked with the Head office through the Area Manager and explained about the complaint and thereafter some persons stating themselves as Engineer of the ops paid visit at the house of complainant and changed the compressor of refrigerator stating that as there was some manufacturing defect in the compressor, hence on the instructions of op no.2 they have changed the defective compressor. But inspite of change of compressor, there was no removal of defect in the refrigerator because the cooling was very much less and refrigerator rendered as useless. The complainant further lodged the complaint to the ops but till today no action has been taken and ultimately about two days back the op no.1 showed his real nature and rebuked the complainant for his regular visit and openly refused to replace the refrigerator. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement wherein sale of refrigerator to the complainant is admitted but all the remaining contents of complaint have been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 also filed reply and submitted that refrigerator of the complainant has become out of warranty as same had been purchased on 11.4.2012 and complainant has filed the present complaint after more than three and half years of purchasing the said refrigerator. The service engineer of op no.2 visited the premises of the complainant and after checking the refrigerator changed the compressor of same and made the refrigerator of complainant in perfect working condition. The complainant has put forward a concocted story in order to get his perfect working refrigerator with a new one and to grab money from answering op illegally. If the said refrigerator was showing such defects from the very beginning then why he has waited for a period of more than three and half years.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1 and affidavit of op no.1 Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has purchased the refrigerator in question from op no.1 on 11.4.2012 for a sum of Rs.16290/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. The complainant has alleged that he was given five years warranty against compressor of refrigerator and one year warranty of whole refrigerator. Although the complainant has filed the present complaint after a period of three and half years but he is alleging defects in the compressor of refrigerator within warranty period and op no.2 has admitted that once compressor of refrigerator has been replaced. As the complainant is again alleging defects specially in the compressor of the refrigerator within warranty period, therefore, ops are liable to inspect the refrigerator in question and replace the compressor with a new one of perfect working condition and to make the refrigerator defect free as defects alleged by the complainant are related to the compressor.
7. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to get inspect the refrigerator of complainant through their engineers and replace the compressor with a new one of perfect working condition if defect is found in the compressor and to make the refrigerator defect free within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the opposite parties are liable to comply this order jointly and severally. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 28.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
