Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1056/2013

MANJU GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ REFRIGERATION - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 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       1056 / 2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  09/12/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 24/05/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          25/05/2017   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Smt Manju Goel, adult 

W/o Sh B K Goel  

R/o C-80, Vivek Vihar Phase I 

Delhi 110095…………………………….……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Gunjan Refrigeration,  

62, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar

Shakarpur Road, Delhi 110092

 

2-Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Godrej Bhawan, 2^nd Floor,  

Shershah Suri Bhawan,

Okhla New Delhi 110065

 

3- Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Regd. Office- Firozshah Nagar,

Vikroli, Mumbai-400079.……..………………...………………………  Opponents

 

                                      

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, Smt Manju Goel, was introduced Frost Free Range Catalogue 2010 Godrej EON model having 231 liter capacity at her residence by the sales person of OP who told that this was a very new model having four star category by which maximum electricity was saved and there was no need of stabilizer to be attached and food remains fresh for long time.

Besides this, he also lured the complainant with scheme of giving a pair of gold and silver watches and a very good discount on MRP of the fridge. He also told that this fridge had five years guarantee besides one free service provided by the manufacturer. The MRP was shown to Rs 14,110/- and after discount, it would cost Rs 12,532/-. Complainant after being satisfied with all the assurances, booked one fridge on 04/07/2010 having model GEF 25AD with colour and took a token amount Rs 500/-for the same. On 15/07/2010, one fridge was received by the complainant at her residence vide model no. GEF 25 ACH Grey Colour vide invoice no. 811/93087865 and paid the balance amount Rs 12,032/- as marked CW1/1, 2 & 3.

 

When complainant opened the warranty card, it had five years warranty on compressor and one year on other parts and not guarantee as promised by the agent of the OP as per warranty card Ex CW1/4. The said fridge developed some problem on 12/07/2011, so complainant informed OP2 for its one free service, but it was told that OP1 would do the service. When no one came for rectifying the problem even waiting long, complainant again lodged a complaint to OP1 vide complaint no. 238308 SQE code 840150. The service technician came and after inspecting the fridge told that its compressor got jammed. He also told that installation of stabilizer was also necessary for good running the fridge. A service cum job rate list was given including stabilizer cost to Rs 3380-/ which included relay and gas filling charges Rs 1340 and stabilizer cost Rs 1850/-vide receipt no. 12830 on dated 23/08/2011. The compressor and relay was replaced on 29/08/2011 and also gave stabilizer’s warranty card as per Ex CW1/ 5 to 10  

 

After some time, said fridge again had some problem of cooling from 18/03/2013, so a complaint was lodged with OP1. The service technician told after inspecting that gas had chocked and relay had also got damaged vide service order no. 2433281. Visit charges Rs 375/- were paid to the service man as per the conditions. He gave an estimate of expenditure of Rs 2060/- including gas charges Rs 1400/- and Rs 660/- for relay. The service man also told that no original compressor was installed on 29/08/2011 due to which fridge was giving problems. He also told that due to manufacturing defect, problems were coming.  

 

 

Felt cheated by the OP’s agent for giving all false assurances, a defective fridge was sold to them, so lodged many complaints to OP2, but did not get any satisfactory reply. Thus, complainant purchased another fridge of LG mark on 20/03/2013 for Rs 17,800/- vide receipt no. 24504 which does not required stabilizer and was running without any trouble as marked Ex CW1/11 and 12. Thereafter complainant gave a legal notice on 09/11/2013 to refund Rs 26,637/- which were paid by her with Rs 10,000/- as compensation and harassment as marked Ex CW1/. When she did not get any reply of legal notice, filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs 26,637/- with compensation of Rs 10,000/- marked as Ex CW1/13.

 

Notices were served. A joint written statement was submitted by OP2 and 3 where it was denied that no one gave any assurance for 5 year guarantee whereas as per their warranty card, compressor had 5 years warranty and all other products except bulb and other accessories. It was also stated that their service charges were not free except first service. So whenever complaint was received by OP, service engineer was sent to rectify the problems.    Hence there was no deficiency in their services and also had no manufacturing defect in the fridge, so this complaint may be dismissed. 

 

Complainant submitted her evidence on affidavit and affirmed herself on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true as stated in her complaint.

OP 2 and 3 jointly submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Majas A Khan, Commercial Manager, stated on oath that all the allegations of complainant were rightly denied by them and their product had no manufacturing defect and reaffirmed that only compressor had 5 year warranty. It was also stated that due to repeated gas leakage, compressor was replaced under warranty tenure, but had charges for gas filling and relay replacement.  

  

Arguments were heard from both the parties at length and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record.  It was admitted by OP that the

said fridge was purchased by the complainant which had been manufactured by OP3 and services were provided by their authorized service centre OP1 as and when complaint was received.

 

We have also scrutinized all the evidences of both parties and it was seen that there were number of complaints for gas leakage and even after repeated filling, gas leakage was present. This clearly proves that the compressor was defective and that is why OP1 had replaced it within warranty tenure. All other accessories like relay, cooling ducts were getting choked was due to the defective compressor. As compressor was replaced by OP1, no details about compressor was submitted by them as per OP3, every compressor of their make were having 5 years warranty, but neither any evidence of new compressor was submitted nor warranty card of replaced new compressor. This clearly proves the allegation of complainant that compressor was not new which OP1 had replaced.

 

OP agent had stated that stabilizer was not required in this new technology fridge where as it was purchased by the complainant on the advice of OP1 service engineer. This again proves that complainant was wrongly briefed by the agent of OP who visited at her residence.

Considering these points, it is clear that OP wanted to clear their old stock; OP gave huge discount on MRP besides scheme of watches. Repeated leakage of gas from compressor cannot be presumed as an ordinary act and subsequent filling of gas and service proves that the product was of inferior quality.

      

So, we are of the opinion that complainant has proved that the compressor was defective since it was purchased for which complainant had to pay gas filling charges and later OP1 replaced the compressor during warranty tenure and stabilizer was required to run in normal way.

Thus, this complaint deserves to be allowed with the following order—

1. OP 3 shall refund cost of gas filling Rs 1530/- against CR no. 12830 dated 23/08/2011 and Rs 2060/-against CR no. 30966, thus total Rs 3590/-due to defective compressor fitted in the said fridge within 30 days from the date of receiving of order.

 

1. OP shall also pay a sum of Rs 7500/-as compensation for harassment caused to the complainant. This will include the cost of litigation also.  
2. If awarded amount is not complied within stipulated time, complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
3. We also put a condition on OP if said fridge develops compressor problem within 6 month, OP shall refund the cost of fridge paid by complainant without any interest.
4. OP shall also give 5 year warranty on the replaced new compressor from the date of replacement to the complainant.         

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                              Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                            

                                                

                                                    Shri Sukhdev Singh President