Delhi

East Delhi

CC/857/2013

PREM PRAKASH SRIVASTAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ BOYCE - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

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

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

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no          857 / 2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  30/09/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 31/10/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          31/10/2017   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr Prem Prakash Srivastava, adult 

R/o- B-326, Gali No. 1

West Vinod Nagar, Delhi 110092……………………………………….…Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-The Managing Director  

Godrej Boyce Mfg. Ltd.

Pirojsha Nagar, Vikroli East

Mumbai 400079

 

2-The Regional Manager

Godrej Boyce Mfg. Ltd.

Godrej Bhawan, Sher Shah Suri Marg,

New Delhi-110065

 

3-M/s Hazarat Vision

19-20, Lalita Park

Vikas MArg, Delhi 110092……………………………………………………Opponents

 

                                      

Quorum  -     Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case

  

Complainant, purchased one Godrej fridge on 31/05/2013 from OP3/seller having model no. 240PDSLS for a sum of Rs 14,666/-vide bill no. 51994 (Ex CW1/1) and the said fridge was delivered on the same date by OP3 through cycle rickshaw.  

At the time of delivering the fridge, its door was damaged so complaint was lodged to OP3 for replacing the fridge, but OP3 did not listen, so made call at customer care centre of OP1 and 2 vide complaint no. D3105296298 on 31/05/2013.

The technician visited on next day and assured for replacement of fridge in few days, but on 05/06/2013, technician repaired the door and stated that the fridge was working in good condition. On 13/06/2013, again complaint was lodged for replacing the fridge to OP1 and 2 vide complaint no. D1306306845. But no response was given. Thereafter number of complaints was done, but only assurance was given from OP1. Later, complainant sent a legal notice to OP1 on 13/08/2013 for replacing the fridge (Ex CW1/2). On 23/08/2013, reply was sent by OP1 on false and vague grounds, but fridge was not replaced. So, filed this complaint claiming replacement of fridge with compensation of Rs 50,000/-and litigation fee Rs 21,000/-.  

 

Notices were served. OP1 filed written statement jointly for OP2 also and denied all the allegations put against them by complainant. It was admitted that as per the report of service engineer, there was slight dent over the door, but the fridge was working in good condition. It was also stated that OP had offered to replace the door of the fridge, but complainant did not allow for replacement. As there was no manufacturing defect, so replacement was not possible as per company’s terms and conditions. Hence, complaint may be dismissed.  

 

Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit and affirmed himself on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true as stated in his complaint and the said fridge had manufacturing defect, but OP did not replace the fridge.  

OP1 and 2 submitted their evidence on affidavit through their Branch Commercial Manager Mr Majaj A Khan and affirmed that their all products had standard one year warranty and the same was available to the said fridge. As there was no manufacturing defect, so there was no question for replacement of fridge to new one. It had slight dent and OP3 had promised to get the door replaced through OP2 (Ex OPW1/1), but complainant did not allow, so there was no deficiency in their services from OPs. Hence complaint may be dismissed.  

Complainant filed his written arguments.

Arguments were heard from both the counsels and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record.  It was admitted by OP2 that the said fridge was purchased by the complainant from OP3, but denied to have any manufacturing defect. Also it has been seen that there was no evidence of service report submitted by the complainant that could prove that fridge had manufacturing defect or its door was not properly closing or OP did not try to rectify the defect whatsoever was present. In the absence of any concrete evidence from complainant, it is thus observed that the fridge had some door related problem which was also offered to replace the door.

OP3 being the seller, had no liability in providing services and similarly OP1 and 2 had no deficiency in their services. Hence no liability could be fastened on OPs. So, we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defect in the said fridge. Thus, this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed, so dismissed without any cost to order.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                                  Shri Sukhdev Singh - President