Delhi

East Delhi

CC/972/2015

VINAY SARIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ BHAWAN - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jan 2016

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.          972/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  08/01/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 08/04/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          10/04/2019  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Vinay Sarin   

R/o  59 Indra Park, St no. 14

Chander Nagar, Krishna Nagar Delhi 110051.…………..……….Complainant                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Godgerj Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd.  

Godrej Bhawan    

Sher Shah Suri Marg, Okhla 3, New Delhi 110020

 

2-M/s Gunjan Refrigeration (Godrej)   

Autho. Service Station

62, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 .…………………….Opponents

 

Complainant…………………….……………In  Person

Opponent 1&2 Advocate ………………..Mhmd Ashraf Hasnain

 

Quorum            Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                           Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                           Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case - 

Complainant purchased Godrej double door Fridge 304 Ltr on 28/07/2007 vide model no. REF GFE 32B, invoice no. 4561 (Ex CW1/1). The said fridge had one year standard warranty with 5 year compressor and 10 years for rust., but after 6 years of using fridge, door got rust so was complaint to OP2/ service centre. Service technician visited and reported that door would be replaced within month and charged visit fee Rs 375/-(Ex CW1/2). Even after one month neither door was replaced nor any information was sent by OP2, so sent complaint through emails (Ex CW1/3) to OP1 who informed that the said model was discontinued and if complainant was accepting 40% of invoice price or Hi model company refurnished fridge, but complainant did not agree to accept the offer sent by OP1.   

Even reminding number of times to OP1, neither door was changed nor new fridge was provided, so filed this complaint and claimed replacement of fridge door or replace with new fridge with compensation Rs 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs 10,000/- litigation charges.  

It was stated that complainant could not attend Forum proceeding due to non availability in Delhi, so complaint was dismissed. Complainant appealed before Hon State Commission, Delhi and dismiss order was set aside vide order in FA 111/2016 dated 17/03/2016(Ex CW1/4).    

After receiving notice, OP1/ Godrej Boyce submitted written statement and denied allegations of complainants as false and incorrect. It was stated that Fridge had no manufacturing defect ever present. As the said model was discontinued, so the replacement of door of same model was not possible and timely intimated complainant with good offer of 40% of invoice price of fridge or new higher model company refurnished fridge was offered to complainant, but the offer was declined. If manufacturing would had continued then replacement would had been done much earlier, but neither part was available nor same specification model fridge was available with OP1. Hence, there was no deficiency in services extended to complainant as his only one complaint was received after using fridge for 10 years on 18/02/2017 vide order no. 326870 for cooling problem. After checking it was found that gas was less so gas was filled and even compressor was replaced free of cost. As RUST protection warrantee was given for 10 years, but door got rust at the bottom, so replacement was advised by their service engineer. The said fridge was working normally and no complaint was received after 18/02/2017. Hence, allegation of deficiency of services or defective product of OP1 does not arise and complaint was liable to be dismissed.

OP2 did not appear despite of serving notice, so proceeded ex parte.

Complainant filed rejoinder to written statements of OP1 and denied all the replies submitted by OP1. Complainant stated that facts of his complaints were true and correct and had also submitted evidences on affidavit of himself where he stated that annexure as CW1/1 pertaining to invoice and CW1/2 & 3 of service and warranty were on record and relied on them. He also submitted one additional evidence as of fridge of 165 liters which was purchased by his younger brother on 10/03/2015 had two years extended warranty from 10/03/2015 to 09/03/2016 was now about 8 years old and was working well. He stated that his prayer may be allowed.

 OP1 submitted evidence on affidavit of Mr Ajay Mathur, Branch Manager Commercial with OP1 and stated that under the given warranty, compressor was replaced and gas was filled. As the door got rusted within warranty, but door of same specification was not available due to discontinue of same manufacturing product since long so was offered refund of 40% of invoice amount though said fridge was well used for over 6 years and had no complaints, but only one complaint pertaining to RUST in the door was reported. Complainant was not ready to accept higher model company refurnished fridge. Hence there was no deficiency in services of OP1.

Arguments were heard and order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was admitted by OP1 had stopped manufacturing the said model since long and it was not possible to replace fridge for a new one when the fridge was used without any complaint for about ten years.  So in reference to the evidence and facts submitted by OP1 in reference to offer was quite well acceptable.

We advice complainant that if he wants to accept any one offer of OP within 30 days from the date of the order will be the end of justice as OP1 cannot substitute with same model of fridge when it was discontinued since long. There shall be no order to cost.  

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per Regulation 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under regulation 20 (1) of the CPR.

 

    Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                  Shri Sukhdev Singh President