Delhi

East Delhi

CC/346/2018

SUDHIR VARSHNEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ & BOYCE. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.346/2018

 

	SUDHIR VARSHNEY R/O A-65, GROUND FLOOR PRIYADARSHINI VIHAR , LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092	….Complainant
Versus
	GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/ DIRECTOR REGD. OFFICE AT: PIROJSHANAGAR, VIKHROLI MUMBAI-400079	……OP1
	KALPANA DIGITAL WORLD 1/10, 12, MAIN VIKAS MARG LALITA PARK, LAXMI NAGAR DELHI-110092 THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE	……OP2

 

 

Date of Institution	:	30.10.2018
Judgment Reserved on	:	25.04.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	27.04.2023

 

               

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

 

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OPs w.r.t. selling a defective Refrigerator to the complainant by the OP2 as manufactured by OP1.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Godrej Refrigerator REF RB EON NXW 430 SD 2.4 INO vide invoice No. K-03702/16-17 dated 23.10.2016, from OP2 as manufactured by OP1 for an amount of Rs.47,100/- but within three months of its purchasing it was revealed that PCB Plate of the Refrigerator was not working and also it was found that Refrigerator was defective as door and side wall were dented.  Although, the door was replaced but the PCB was not readily available with OP and as such it took long time for repairing it.  Not only this, the service engineer of OP1 demanded Rs.2,300/- which were paid by the complainant.  Service engineer then sold that PCB gadget to the complainant has been replaced but again the Refrigerator broke down after sometime and again in June, 2017 despite the assurance of Service Engineer Refrigerator stopped working and although this fact was informed but the complaint was again made in November, 2017 for the replacement of the Refrigerator and it was repaired but again in July, 2018 Refrigerator stopped working and the Service Engineer visited and it was found that Refrigerator cannot be repaired as the part which was defective is not available and the complainant was assured that the Refrigerator would be replaced but neither the Refrigerator was rectified nor it was replaced despite various communications to both the OPs and therefore the complainant was constrained to make the request to the OP1 to refund the amount of the Refrigerator which was declined and legal notice thereafter was issued on 07.9.2018 thereby demanding of Rs.47,100/- towards the cost of Refrigerator and Rs. 2,300/- paid once towards the gadget fittings and Rs.2,500/- for extending warranty along with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment.   
3. OP1 has filed the Written Statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable in law as well as on facts as complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands, complainant is guilty of concealing material facts, there is no deficiency on the part of OP1, there is no manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator, there is no cause of action against the OP1 or in favour of the complainant, there is no privity of contract in between complainant and OP1, the complaint has been filed with ulterior motives by stating misleading and false facts, the complaint is otherwise ambiguous, vexatious and frivolous and there is no mechanical/ technical report to substantiate the allegations of the complainant. 
4. On merit it is denied that the Refrigerator was defective and it is submitted that the technician visited the premises of the complainant and found that PCB had some problem which was replaced with new one, with full satisfaction of the complainant and as far as payment of Rs. 2,300/- is concerned it is submitted that the complainant purchased one stabilizer for the Refrigerator and that was not the cost of PCB.  With respect to the complaint in June, 2017 it is submitted that technician visited the premises of the complainant and found that lights which were misaligned from its place during usage and also submitted that no PCB defect was observed by technician and proper services were given by the OP1.  As far as the allegations w.r.t. July, 2018 are concerned, it is submitted that the technician visited the premises and found that PCB had some problem, the technician was ready to replace with the new one but complainant denied to get the same replaced.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed. 
5. Complainant filed Rejoinder on the Written Statement of OP1 and also has filed his own evidence and exhibited the documents from CW1/1 to CW1/17. 
6. OP1 has filed the evidence of one Sh. Ajay Mathur, Branch Commercial Manager of M/s Godrej & Boyce Mf. Co. Ltd., Godrej Bhawan, Sher  Shah Suri Marg, Okhla, New Delhi.     
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
8. The Refrigerator was purchased from the OP2 as manufactured by OP1 is not disputed therefore the contention of the OP2 that there is no privity of contract does not have any force.  Had there been no privity, the OP1 would not have replaced the door of the Refrigerator or repaired the same through its technician, so this contention is not well found.   The other contention of OP1 is that the complaint is false, vexatious, frivolous and without any cause of action is also not tenable keeping in view the admitted fact that the Refrigerator purchased by the complainant developed certain defects and even for sometime the defects were removed however finally the same were not cured.  Therefore, the complaint cannot be said to be without any cause of action or vexatious/false as alleged. 
9. The Refrigerator was not repaired finally although it became defective within three months of its purchase and it shows that there was prima facie deficiency on the part of OPs.  Therefore, all the contentions raised by the OP1 are not well found and above all letter dated 16.08.2018 has been placed on record which is sent by the OP to the complainant and it reads as under:

Dear Mr. Varshney

Greetings from Godrej………..

We have received your mail regarding the refund request of your refrigerator. You have mentioned that you have handed over the documents to Mr. Asif on 3rd August 2018 but sorry to inform you that the original documents are still not received to us.  We have required the below documents for refund processing :-

1. Original Bit of the product
2. ID proof in the name of the customer mentioned in the bill
3. Letter for refund request

Request you to please provide the requested documents as soon as       possible for further delay.

The refund process will take time of 15-20 days for the complete process. As per process the refrigerator will be lifted after 12-15 days of processing of refund and cheque will be dispatched through courier after 4-5 days of the lifting appliance from your place. 

This is for your kind information.  In case you have any doubts feel free to contact or write to undersigned.

We assure you of diligent service always and look forward for your continued patronage with Godrej. 

Thank you for being a valued customer of Godrej. 

Thanks & Regards

Ajay Kumar

ASM-Appliance Service

Godrej Appliances, Delhi

Mobile - 9648411888

10. From this letter it is established that all the objections raised by the OP1 are just after thought and infact the OP1 had no reason to defend this case for about four years particularly when in 2018 itself they had agreed that the refund process was initiated.  Therefore, the fact that not only the OPs have supplied the defective Refrigerator to the complainant but despite having informed the complainant that the refund process is on, they have not refunded the amount then, and have not made the payment even till today.  This is a clear case where the exemplary cost can be imposed upon the OP1 which the Commission is imposing here under. 
11. Further, since the complaint is tilted more towards OP1 as manufacturer, no liability is fastened on the OP2 towards deficiency in service. 
12. The Commission therefore directs the OP1 to pay the following to the Complainant and orders as follows:

1. OP1 to refund the amount of the Refrigerator i.e. Rs.47,100/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual payment. 
2. OP1 would also pay exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/- which includes litigation charges. 
3. OP1 would take back the Refrigerator in question from the complainant at his own cost after making all the payments to the complainant.  Complainant shall hand over the Refrigerator to OP1 after receipt of the amount as ordered. 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, if not complied then interest @ 12% would be charged on all above stated amounts. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 27.04.2023.