Date: 18-08-2016

    This is a complaint made by one Sunita Das against Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. and M/s Rai A Cooling People, praying for a direction upon the OPs to supply a new refrigerator  and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, as also the cost of present proceeding.

    In brief, the facts are, that Complainant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen of India.  She purchased one Godrej make refrigerator, Model Godrej 220 S ZOP, Colour M. Blue (Penta Cool double door, frost free series) at a cost of Rs. 10,800/-, including VAT on 16-04-2007 under 10 years warranty.  Allegedly, although the refrigerator was running properly, the door developed rust and the outer layer of the door started coming out.  So, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the OP over phone and also sent email in the month of August, 2015.  After several days, one official from its Kolkata Service Centre came and saw the condition of the door and opined that the door should be changed.  However, the OP did not take any action to replace the door. Therefore, this case.

     On notice, OP No. 1 appeared and contested the case by filing WV, wherein it denied all the material allegations of the Complainant.  Further, it is stated in the WV that there was ample reason like improper handling for the door to get rusted.  After so many years of use, one cannot demand replacement of the door or changing the item with a new one.  So, the OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons

    On the basis of above facts, the case was admitted.  Thereafter, Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief, against which OP No. 1 filed questionnaire, to which Complainant filed reply under affidavit.  Thereafter, OP No. 1 filed evidence and after that, argument was heard.

    Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs or not.

    On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OPs to replace her refrigerator.  It appears that the refrigerator was purchased in the year 2007 and as per Complainant’s averment, the first call was made to the call centre in the month of August, 2015, i.e., after about 8 years.

    Complainant has filed photocopies of certain documents, including one customer’s copy of Warranty Card, wherefrom it appears that the refrigerator was under warranty for 10 years with unique rust protection plan. The body of the refrigerator was thus protected from problems of rust and in case of formation of rust on any painted surface of the refrigerator, within the period of 10 years from the date of purchase, the company offered to make good/repaint part/entire refrigerator free of cost.  However, there was a sting attached to it.  Such rust protection plan would turn void in case of occurrence of any external damages/scratch/dent after the date of purchase.  Also, the OP enjoys immunity in case defects are caused due to improper use, which should be determined by the company personnel or in case any unauthorized person carries out any repair work, or defects cause due to reason beyond control, like abnormal voltage, acts of God, or while in transit to service centre or purchaser’s residence.

    In this regard, it is alleged by the OP No. 1 that during inspection, it was observed by its service engineer that the refrigerator was not kept properly.  Keeping in mind the long tenure of flawless use, such a possibility cannot be ruled out as an absurd proposition.  Having said that, it is also a fact that by virtue of the warranty clause, the OPs cannot shrug off their liability to make good/compensate the loss.

    Therefore, keeping in mind the pros and cons of the case, we are of view that if an award of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded in favour of the Complainant, object of justice would be served.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

    that CC/101/2015 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against the OP No. 2.  OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant within two months of this order, i.d., the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from this day till full and final payment is made.  Claim for litigation cost is not awarded because the nature of dispute does not warrant so.

    The liability of the OPs is joint and several.