VIJAY KUMAR filed a consumer case on 29 Jan 2016 against GODREJ in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/716/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 16 Mar 2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 716/2015
In matter of
Sh Vijay Kumar, adult
s/o Late Sh Goverdhan Dass
R/o-HN.- 6641,Street no 5, Block9
Karol Bagh, New Delhi…110055……………………………………………..…………….Complainant
Vs
M/s Gogrej & Boyece Mfg Co. Ltd
Through its Director,
Godrej Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Sher Shah Suri Marg
Okhla, New Delhi-110065………………..…………………………….………………….Respondents
Date of Institution – 21/01/2015
Date of Order - 03/02/2016
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member :
Brief Facts of the case
Mr Vijay Kumar, complainant had purchased a Godrej Fridge (GFE-29DZ) on 23/05/2010 from M/s Sargam Electronics vide invoice S/PP2-674. The said fridge had one year warranty. After the expiry of one year warranty period, OP took four year maintenance contract from 22/05/2011 and received payment of Rs 2,880/. In the month of Oct 2014 refrigerator developed problem of leakage of water for which complaints were lodged. The said problem was corrected. Fridge again developed same problem and complainant lodged and problem was corrected.
The complainant after expiry of 4 year maintenance contract, again took 5 yr maintenance contract from 23/05/2015 and paid Rs 4,066 and got warranty terms and conditions. The said fridge again developed same water leakage problem. Complainant lodged number of complaints but respondent did not remove the problems. As the said fridge was under maintenance contract up to 2018 but due to deficient services by respondent, complainant filed
Page 01
Consumer complaint no. 716/2015
complaint for refund of fridge amount Rs 16,500/ with 24% interest on it. He also prayed for compensation of Rs 20,000/- for harassment and agony.
After scrutinizing facts and evidences on record, notice was served. OP submitted their written version. Opponent admitted that the said fridge was purchased on 23/05/2010. The said refrigerator had no manufacturing defect and no complaint ever lodged with opponent in one year from purchase. Opponent admitted that first extended warranty was for four years from 23/05/2011 to 22/05/2015. Complainant further took warranty for three years. Opponent denied for taking next AMC for five year. It was taken from 23/05/2015 to 22/05/2018 for three years as per annexure C3. It is also admitted by opponent that the drain pipe got choked due to food particles. Opponent also denied the allegation that the defective fridge was sold. As no complaint about the defect has ever been lodged during one year of warranty from the date of purchase but in the extended warranty for four year, the said fridge developed water leaking problem and that too was rectified. The problems occurred in the end of four year of AMC, too were corrected. There after further AMC of three year taken which is still valid up to 22/05/2018 and problems were timely rectified.
The complainant filed application for interim relief u/s sec. 13(3)B of CP Act,1986 for providing alternate working fridge of same category till the problem exits. Opponent filed their objections to interim relief application. The opponent said that they do not deal in sale /purchase/renting business of old refrigerators.
Complainant and opponent filed their evidences on affidavit and are on record. The terms and conditions on record clearly show that the internal sealed parts are under AMC. Parties filed their written arguments. Arguments heard.
After seeing the evidences on record, it is clear that the said refrigerator had no problem in first year of warranty after its purchase date. The warranty was extended for four years after expiry of one year product warranty. The said problem of leaking of water started at the end of fourth
Page 02
Consumer complaint no. 716/2015
year of AMC and that too was rectified. The said AMC is for the repair and maintenance of the parts covered under the contract. Problems were rectified accordingly. The complainant further took a three year warranty which is valid till 22/05/2018 and water leakage problem re started and still persisting.
We allow complaint partly. Opponent is directed to replace the defective part within 30 days from this order as AMC contract is valid up to 22/05/2018. If not replaced the defective parts in time, refund the second AMC amount Rs 4066/ with 9% interest till realization. We further award compensation of Rs 5000/ for harassment, mental pain and agony caused to complainant. Failing to comply the order in time, the complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest on entire amount till paid.
The order copy be sent to parties as per act and file be consigned to record room.
(Dr) P N Tiwari -Member Md Poonam Malhotra-Member
Mr N A Zaidi - President
Page 03
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.