Delhi

East Delhi

CC/314/2017

RAIS AHMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 2019

ORDER

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

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

                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no           314/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  24/08/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 26/11/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          29/11/2019  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Rais Ahmed, 45 yrs   

S/o- Sh. Nafees Ahmed  

R/o- 3873, Tafajjul Hussain, Daryagunj,

Jama Masjid, Delhi 110006…………………………….…………….…Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Godrej Ltd.  

Godrej Bhawan, 2^nd Floor,

Sher Shah Suri Marg, Okhla, New Delhi 110065…..……………Opponents

 

2- M/s Vijay Sales     

A-18, Vikas Marg, Swasthya Vihar,

Oppo. Metro Pillar 83, Vikas Marg, Delhi 92

 

                                           

Complainant                                          In Person   

Opponent’s Advocate -                       Legal Needs-Law Firm   

 

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 refrigerator on 16/08/2016 from OP2/M/s Vijay Sales, seller, having model no. RTEON-261P 3.4 Silver Meadow for a sum of Rs 21700/-having one year standard warranty of the fridge vide invoice no. V 30160010688 (Ex CW1/1). It was stated that a crack was found inner side of body of fridge, so complaint on 27/07/2017 (Ex CW1/2) in wrting to OP1. Service engineer inspected and noted a crack inside the body of the fridge and stated that it could be repaired, so was repaired. It was stated that fridge developed low cooling problem so again made complaint to OP1 by writing on 10/08/2017 (Ex CW1/3).  

Complainant served legal notice for replacing his fridge or refund of the cost of fridge. OP1 replaced said fridge as per coloured photographs annexed by complainant (Ex CW15,6). When OP1 did not pay compensation of Rs 50,000/- for mental agony, filed this complaint for compensation against OP1.

 

OP1/manufacturer filed written statement and denied all the allegations put against them by complainant. It was admitted that complainant had purchased the said fridge as per Ex CW1/1, and was installed by their service engineer. There was no job sheet on record as a defective product sold by OP2. It was also submitted that first complaint was received pertaining to linear crack after using for over one year as outer body had covered under standard warranty, so necessary repair was carried out free of cost (Ex OPW1/1). Later another complaint was received pertaining to low cooling and timely fridge was replaced as per coloured photo annexed as Ex OPW1/5&6. Hence OP1 was not liable for any deficiency in services and most of the services were extended in out of warranty tenure. So this complaint may be dismissed.

 

OP2/seller submitted written statement and totally denied allegations leveled against them. It was admitted that fridge was purchased by complainant from OP2 with proper inspecting and warranty terms and benefits. The said fridge had no evidence of defect or deficiency as alleged by complainant in his complaint as fridge had run well over under standard warranty. So OP2 could not be made liable for any defective product sold.  

 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder to both written statements of OP1 and OP2 and denied all replies submitted. He stressed on his facts of complaint as true and correct. He also submitted his evidences on his own affidavit and affirmed on oath that relied on all evidences on record and stated that said fridge had manufacturing defect in reference to his evidences (Ex CW1/4&5), but OP replaced fridge of inferior quality, hence

complaint be allowed.   

OP1 submitted evidence on affidavit through their Authorised Representative Mr Ajay Mathur and denied all the allegations of complainant. OP1 relied on evidence of complainant (Ex CW1/1) as the said fridge was purchased from OP2 after properly inspecting and checking and all services were extended during and after warranty tenure. Minor crack to replacement of fridge was done on goodwill gesture and last complaint dated 19/08/2017 pertaining to denting of body, but during inspection by service technician, complainant refused for taking any service and cancelled complaint on 21/08/2017. So all stated allegations were false and without any evidence of manufacturing defect or deficiency in services. Hence, prayed for not fastening any liability on OP1.    

 

OP2 also submitted evidences through their Authorised Representative Mr. Sonu Kumar and affirmed that all their products carry one year standard warranty from the date of purchase and warranty was provided by the manufacturer and by the seller. So, complainant had failed to prove any deficiency service in said fridge. Though inner body had no warranty which was manufactured of PVC material still was repaired through OP1 even after warranty tenure for which OP2 was not liable.  

OP1 submitted their written arguments and stressed of their evidence and so taken on record. 

 

Arguments were heard and order was reserved after perusing material on record.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record.  It has been seen that there was no evidence of manufacturing defect and the said fridge vide model no RT EON 261 P 3.4 vide serial no. 1604840376 -2N2FSM was replaced to sn. 1610830090 2N2MST though without supported by affidavit from complainant.

Before coming to the conclusion, we have referred some judgments to see the merits of this case as under-

1-‘Sushila Automobiles Ltd. vs Dr Birendra Narain & others’, 3(2010) CPJ 130 NC and

2-Stereocraft vs Monotype India Ltd., (2000) NCJ (SC) 59.

3-Tata Motors vs Deepak Goyal, RP 2309/2008NC,

4-Vikram Bajaj vs Hind Motors India Ltd & others, 2009IICLT 670 NC,

5-Kamal Kishore vs Electronics Corporation of India, RP 3029/2010 NC,

6- Shiv Prasad Paper Industries vs Senior Machinery Co. I (2006) CPJ 92 NC. 

 

In all above citations it was seen that ‘en equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired’ though OP2 carried out necessary repair and later replaced fridge also. Hence, there was no deficiency on part of OP2 because replacement was only done if manufacturing defect was proved by expert report or seen” but no such evidence was brought before us.

When no defect has been proved by complainant by any evidence pertaining to deficiency in services or manufacturing defect, no liability can be fastened on OP1 and OP2. Thus complaint deserves to be dismissed with no other order to cost.

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Section 18 (6) 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                                                                       Mrs Harpreet Kaur - Member   

 

                                                           Sukhdev Singh - President