Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No.2745 of 2006
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Firozsha Nagar,
Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079 through its
Chief Executive. …Appellant.
1- Dr. Rajesh Mehra, R/o 113/14, Shahi Darbar,
Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar.
2- M/s Refrigerators and Electricals appliances,
24/12, Karachi-Khana, Kanpur Nagar through
its Proprietor. .…Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.
Sri Vikas Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Sri Alok Sinha, Advocate for the respondents.
Date 14.3.2022
JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 01.06.2006 passed by Learned District Forum, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case no.812 of 2005, Dr. Rajesh Mehra & Anr. vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, perverse and not based upon materials on record. The Learned Forum has committed gross error by passing the ex-parte order and judgment without ascertaining the service of summons on the appellant. The Learned Forum has hopelessly failed to issue notice to the opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The appellant has no knowledge of proceedings of the case pending before the Learned District Forum, Kanpur
(2)
Nagar and notice of the said case has ever been served on the appellant. The appellant got the knowledge of proceedings when the appellant got the summons of Forum in the Execution Case no.106 of 2006.
To maintain the goodwill of company, the appellant already replaced the fridge of the complainant on two occasions with the brand-new for but in spite of that the complainant kept on making false and frivolous complaint which had no basis at all. The fridge supplied to the complainant never suffered from any defects and all the complaints raised by the complainant were figment of complainant’s imaginary mind and all the complaints were illusory in nature. The replacement of fridge on 01.09.2005, the complainant never raised any complaint against the working of said fridge and in this respect the complainant never reported any fault or lodged any complaint regarding malfunctioning of the fridge. As per the warranty the appellants are liable for repairs only if the product proves defective due to improper materials or workmanship but refund of cost of fridge is totally outside the scope of warranty and the learned Forum has no power to pass any order which falls outside the scope of warranty. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above This Hon’ble State Commission may graciously be pleased to set aside the order and judgment dated 1 June 2006 and to allow the present appeal.
We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri Vikas Agarwal and ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri Alok Sinha. We have perused the pleadings, evidence and documents on record.
(3)
We have seen the impugned judgment. The complainant bought a Godrej 410 lit double door fridge on 19th October 2004 under the exchange scheme from the opposite party by paying Rs.19,190/–. This fridge was defective from the very beginning due to which freezing of water is stopped in March 2005 and after lodging the complaint, the opposite party replaced the defective fridge on 13 June 2005. The second fridge was also defective and the complainant again lodged various complaints on the ground of which the opposite party again replaced the fridge on first September 2005. Instead of it, the replaced fridge had also various defects for which the present complaint has been filed for refund of the money.
Here the main points are that, that the opposite party replaced the fridge twice showing the fact that both the fridges had defects that is why the company replaced them. The company is a renowned company and it has a number of technical mechanical and electrical engineer and if they replaced the fridge for two times, it clearly shows that there must have some defects on the basis of which the company replaced the fridge. It is also to be taken in mind that the fridge was purchased under the exchange scheme and there are possibilities/probabilities that the complainant was given repaired fridge.
It adversely affect the goodwill of the company. If it happened once, twice, how can one believe that the third fridge had no defects! The complaint of complainant regarding third fridge cannot be overlooked because the previous history of replacing the fridge establishes the fact that he was supplied defective fridge two times then why should one believ that the third replaced fridge was perfect,
(4)
having no defects. So taking all the circumstances and facts of the case we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is perfect and there is no need to interfere in the order of the learned Forum. The present appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost.
ORDER
The Appeal is dismissed with cost and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum dated 01.06.2006 passed in the complaint case no.812 of 2005 is confirmed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA II
Court 2
