The present consumer complaint has been filed by Pradip Choudhuri (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd. & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) seeking replacement of Refrigerator in question alternatively to refund the entire sale price of Rs. 29,000/- along with compensation and litigation cost. The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attaché with it, are that complainant purchased one Godrej R.T. EON 331P-43/331 Litr. Refrigerator Silver Meadow manufactured by OP 1 from OP 4 Great Eastern Techno City against Tax Invoice dated 25.01.2016 for domestic use. Refrigerator was installed at the residence of the complainant on 29.01.2016 and the said refrigerator was covered by warranty. It has been averred in the complaint that to ensure proper maintenance, complainant entered into an Annual Maintenance Contract with the OP 1 for the period from 25.02.2017 to 24.02.2020 against payment of Rs. 2,931/-. Despite AMC water was dripping inside the fridge from its various places in the main door and fridge was giving constant problem with gasket, sensor etc. Cooling of the refrigerator was also not at its optimum best. Problem was started on expiry of the warranty period. Problems were reported to OP 6 who sent their technicians on 16.04.2017, 03.08.2017, 24.02.2018, 09.07.2018, 31.07.2018, 07.08.2018 and 03.11.2018 for servicing the refrigerator. It is also averted by the complainant that he was shocked and traumatized due to such recurring (inherent) defect in the newly purchased fridge. OP 6 severally deputed authorized technicians to remove the defect but such defect was not cured. In course of inspection of fridge Mr. M. Rahaman, representative of OP 6 falsely claimed that maintenance is not covered under any AMC and induced the complainant to enter into a new AMC for the period from 11.09.2017 to 10.09.2018 against payment of Rs. 6,000/- despite existence of earlier AMC. Seeing the conduct of the OP 1, the complainant vide legal notice dated 27.08.2018 sought to replace the defective fridge, alternatively to refund entire sale price of Rs. 29,000/- from the OP 2 (Sales Manager, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd.), but in vain. On account of inherent manufacturing defect the fridge in question becomes useless and its problem cannot be rectified. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint with the following prayer :- - To replace the refrigerator in question with a new one of same mode along with fresh warranty and free AMC for three years alternatively to refund the sale price of Rs. 29,000/-;
- To refund Annual Maintenance contracts amount of Rs. 2,931/- and Rs. 6,000/-;
- To pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and physical agony and;
- Litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
The complaint is resisted by the OPs 1 & 2 by filing its written version in which it has been stated that the complainant purchased the refrigerator in question on 25.01.2016 and there was no complain of the product during the warranty period. Annual Maintenance Contract executed on 25.02.2017 and it was valid till 24.02.2020. All complain raised by the complainant during the AMC period was successfully closed. AMC executed on 11.09.2017 is not done by the authorized service centre of the answering OPs. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs. Thus, the complaint is, liable to be dismissed with cost. OPs 3 & 4 have contested the case by filing written version. In the written version, the answering OPs took the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant did not examine any witness to substantiate the allegation that the refrigerator is suffer from manufacturing defect. Complainant purchased the refrigerator in question after its demonstration and satisfaction. The answering OPs have no role to replace the said Godrej Refrigerator and only the manufacturer is liable and responsible for any defect as alleged by the complainant. Being dealer the answering OPs immediately referred the complaint to the OPs 1 & 2 and the OP 1 promptly attended the complaint. The alleged dispute is between the complainant and the manufacturer. The answering OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. Despite service of notices of the complaint, upon the OPs 5 & 6 they did not appear to contest the case by filing written version within the statutory period as provided under the CP Act, 2019. Thus, the case runs ex-parte against the OPs 5 and 6. Complainant and the OPs 1 and 2 have filed their evidence by way of affidavit in order to prove their averments on record. They have also relied the documents annexed with the complaint petition and WV thereto. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a new Godrej RT E on 331P-43/331 Ltr. Refrigerator Silver Meadow manufacture by OP-1 for his domestic use from its Authorized Dealer.OP-4 Great Eastern Technology on 25.01.2016 against payment of Rs 29,000/- The subject refrigerator was installed on 29.01.2016. The said refrigerator was under warrantee for one year from the date of purchase. The complainant paid Rs. 2,931/- for extended warrantee for 3 years from 25.02.2017 to 24.02.2020. It is urged by the complainant that during AMC period water was dripping inside the freeze from its various places in the main door and it was given constant problem along with gasket, sensor etc. and the cooling of refrigerator was not at all its optimum based. During the Annual Maintenance Contract, complainant reported the defects to OP-6 Rita Refrigerator Works, Authorized Service Centre of OP-1 who sent their technician for servicing the defects. Technician of OP-6 pointed out various defects in the refrigerator and despite service properly the refrigerator is not completely free from all defects. It is the further case of the complainant is that on 11.09.2017 one Mr. M Rahman, claiming to be technician of OP-6 told that the subject refrigerator is not covered under AMC and also induced him to enter into further AMC for one year from 11.09.2017 to 10.09.2018 against payment of Rs. 6,000/-. The allegation of the complainant is that the subject refrigerator is defective since its manufacturing and the refrigerator has to be replaced with a new refrigerator. There is no dispute that within warrantee period of 1 year the subject refrigerator was properly function and during AMC period defect cropped up. OP-6 the authorized service agent of OP-1 deputed its technicians to cure the defect. All occasions the technicians cured the defects. Annexure E-1 to E-8 attached with the complaint petition within the AMC period and the technician made an endorsement to the effect that Refrigerator is Ok. Moreso, the complainant failed to produce any expert evidence to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the refrigerator or taking opportunity submitting an application to the commission for appointment of a Mechanical Engineer to prove the allegation of manufacturing defect. Refrigerator was purchased by the complainant on 25.01.2016 and its warranty had already been expired on 24.01.2017. During ACM period the technicians cured the defects and their reports does not reflect that there was any manufacturing defect in the subject refrigerator. Thus, it is not desirable to direct the OP-1 to replace the refrigerator with new one which has been used by the complainant for last 7 years. Complainant ought not to compel the OP-1 to give an undertaking that in case of future defect they had to replace the refrigerator with new one. The allegation of the complainant is that during existence of earlier AMC, technician of OP-6 entered into a new AMC of the refrigerator for the period from 11.09.2017 to 10.09.2018 against payment of Rs. 6,000/-. On perusal of the photocopy of AMC for the period from 11.09.2017 to 10.09.2018 annexed with complaint petition, it appears that the AMC dated 11.09.2017 for the period from 11.09.2017 to 10.09.2018 was issued in the name of Dr. B Dey. Thus, the allegation of the complainant that during existence of earlier AMC technician of OP-6 entered into a new AMC of the subject refrigerator for the period from 11.09.2017 to 10.09.2018 is not correct. OPs 4 and 5 are the authorized dealer of OP-1. OPs 5 ad 6 are the authorized Service Centre of OP-1. Thus they have no role in connection with any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice. Under these circumstances with a view to bring quietus to the controversy involved in this case and to meet the ends of justice, we direct the OPs 1 and 2 to remove the defect of the subject refrigerator, if any, by deputing their technician at the cost of the complainant if so desired by the complainant. This direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of order. Thus, the consumer case is disposed of with no order as to costs. Office is hereby instructed to send a copy of this judgment to the parties free of cost and also upload it to the website of the commission for perusal of the parties | 
