Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Sushma Sinkar on behalf of the Appellant/ original Complainant on admission.
[2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 20/7/2011 passed by Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2011 (old No.181 of 2009), Mr. Ram B. Upadhyay Vs. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd.
[3] It is a complaint in respect of defective refrigerator stabilizer manufactured by the Respondent/original Opponent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Opponent’ for the sake of brevity). A stabilizer for the protection of his refrigerator was purchased by the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) for a consideration of `1,700/-. However, after installing the same, it was found that the compressor of his refrigerator remained idle for hours together and as such, the articles kept in the refrigerator get spoiled. Due to such spoiling of the food, the Complainant sustained loss of `2,000/-. On 1/6/2008, said stabilizer was replaced by the Opponent. However, even the replaced stabilizer was found to be defective and as such, the Complainant discontinued using the said stabilizer. Waiting for three months to attend his complaint regarding the replaced stabilizer, ultimately a notice through lawyer was given by the Complainant to the Opponent on 2/9/2008 and which was duly replied by the Opponent on 18/9/2008. It is brought to the notice of the Complainant that since he did not lodge any complaint in respect of replaced stabilizer to the service centre, no technician could be sent to him. Thereafter, the Opponent, by their letters dated 22/10/2008 and 31/10/2008, showed their willingness to replace the earlier replaced stabilizer too even though they did not admit that the stabilizer had any defect. The Forum has also noted the fact that the Opponent was even ready to replace the replaced stabilizer and since the Complainant did not show much interest in it, their officer, namely – Mr. Harshal, on 25/10/2008, also visited the Complainant alongwith a cheque to refund the price of the stabilizer of `1,700/- but, it is the Complainant who refused to accept the same. Under these circumstances, the Forum observed that there is no deficiency in service established on the part of the Opponent and further observed that the defect in the product supplied was also not established and dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the Complainant.
[4] In the appeal memo the Complainant tried to assert that the appeal is preferred only to the extent of dismissing the consumer complaint by holding that Complainant failed to prove that the stabilizer supplied by the Opponent is defective.
[5] Admittedly, no compliance is made in light of Section-13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and the Complainant himself did not take any steps in that direction. Since it is a case of defective goods such compliance ought to have been ensured.
[6] Facts recounted earlier are not in dispute. The Complainant also failed to show that the factual observation made by the Forum is erroneous. No evidence as per provisions of Section-13(4) of the Act is tendered by the Complainant. Under the circumstances, we find no fault with the reasoning and ultimate finding reached by the Forum dismissing the consumer complaint. The appeal is devoid of any substance and holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
The appeal is not admitted and stands rejected in limine.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 15th December, 2011
