DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

CC No.275 of 15-10-2019

Decided on: 20-06-2023

Paramjeet Singh aged about 48 years S/o Harnek Singh R/o Vill. Laleana, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

1. ........Complainant

   1.  

Versus

1. M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacture Co. Ltd., Plot No.A-40, Phase VIII-A, Industrial Area, Punjab, Mohali-0172-5037777, through its Managing Director/Chairman.

    

2. Jain T.V. Centre, Railway Road, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:-

Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present:-

For the complainant : Sh.S.S Sandhu, Advocate.

For opposite party No.1 : Ex-parte

For opposite party No.2 : Sh.Naveen Goyal, Advocate.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

1. The complainant Paramjeet Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Forum (Now Commission) against M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacture Co. Ltd and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly, the facts of the complaint as pleaded by the complainant are that being induced by the tall claims of opposite party No.2, the complainant purchased the refrigerator of 180 Ltr. bearing Model GDE 19 Bl, Sr. No.091012230 for Rs.8200/- vide invoice No.3685 dated 20.2.2010 manufactured by opposite party No.2 with one year warranty of total product, five years warranty of the compressor and 10 years warranty against any type of damage to the body of the refrigerator.

3. It is alleged that the body of the refrigerator started damaging for the last about one and half years, although the period of 10 years of warranty against damage has yet not lapsed, rather same is upto 20.2.2020. The body of refrigerator has already damaged from different places and has started giving very shabby look. The complainant repeatedly approached opposite party No.2 and complained about the damage to the body, but it failed to pay any heed to his requests/complaints, rather it kept on putting off the matter on one or the other false pretext.

4. It is further alleged that the body of the said refrigerator is still under warranty against damage. As such, the complainant is entitled to the replacement of the refrigerator having been damaged/spoiled during warranty period. The complainant repeatedly requested opposite parties to replace the refrigerator with new one as he is also ready to bear the difference of the price of new refrigerator, but to no effect. Due to the act on part of opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration.

5. It is further alleged that the complainant is entitled for replacement of the refrigerator with new one or replacement of its body and compensation on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation to the tune of Rs.5000/ and cost of the complaint to the tune of Rs.3300/-.

6. A perusal of file shows that opposite party No.1 was deleted from the array of opposite parties on the statement of counsel of complainant vide order dated 22.10.2019 and thereafter on application moved by opposite party No.2, opposite party No.1 was again impleaded as party vide order dated 9.6.2022.

7. However, inspite of service, opposite party No.1 failed to appear before this Commission. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it vide order dated 2.9.2022.

8. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raised legal objections that opposite party No.2 is only sales point of the products of opposite party No.1 as well as other companies and gaurantee or warrantee, if any, is given by the manufacturer and not by the seller. As such, the complaint against opposite party No.2 is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. Although, the warranty is not given by opposite party No.2, but even then it cooperated the complainant and referred his complaints vide complaint No.945405 dated 20.7.2019 and 948230 on 8.8.2019 and after that the problem was to be removed by the company.

9. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the refrigerator from opposite party No.2, but he himself of his own choice purchased the refrigerator. The company upto the year of 2018 has been given warranty of 10 years regarding the damage of the body of the refrigerator. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No.2 and complainant is not liable for any damages or compensation from opposite party No.2. The complainant has no cause-of-action to file the complaint against opposite party No.2. In the end, opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex.C-1) and documents (Ex.C2 to Ex.C-4).

11. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Pukhraj dated 29.11.2018 (Ex.OP2/1) and photocopy of warranty, (Ex.OP2/2).

12. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.2 and gone through the record.

13. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1 vide invoice, (Ex.C2) and opposite party No.1 had given warranty of one year on the refrigerator and 5 years warranty on motor and 10 years warranty against rusting as per Ex.OP2/2. However, after one and half year of purchase, refrigerator developed rusting and on complaint being lodged, opposite parties refused to replace the refrigerator or refund its amount.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has argued that opposite party No.2 is only retailer and warranty is given by manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.1. However, purchase of refrigerator is admitted by opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint against it.

15. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

16. It is admitted case of parties that the refrigerator was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.2 and manufactured by opposite party No.1 vide invoice, (Ex.C2). It is further admitted fact that the refrigerator was under warranty of 10 years against rusting as per Ex.OP2/2. Although, there is no report of expert to establish that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question. However, this Commission is of the view that when the fact speak itself, in that case, report of expert cannot be insisted. A perusal of photograph, (Ex.C4) of refrigerator having developed rusting has not been denied by any of opposite parties and as such, evidence on record having remained unrebutted.

17. This Commission is of the view that since refrigerator in question developed rusting, which is fully covered under 10 years warranty as per Ex.OP2/2 and failure of opposite party No.1 to replace the refrigerator amounts to deficiency in services and business mal-practice and accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the old refrigerator sold to the complainant with new one of same brand and capacity and opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant for mental tension, agony and harassment. Since no lapse is prove against opposite party No.2, as such, the complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

18. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

19. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

20. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    20-06-2023

    (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member