Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, President.   

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            The fiction of the complaint is that complainant purchased one refrigerator from OP3 on 04-11-2007 at a consideration of Rs.19,800/- and OP is the dealer of OPs 1 and 2 who are the manufacturer of refrigerator in question but since purchase the same refrigerator began to give trouble to the complainant to use it for which complainant reported the matter to the OPs who could not remove the said defect and ultimately removed the said refrigerator to their workshop on 29-08-2008 vide C.M. No.1051 and they ultimately failed to repair it and for which provided a temporary stand by machine on 17-11-2008 but thereafter, failed to repair it and subsequently, a new refrigerator was replaced on 15-01-2009 but unfortunately second new machine was also found disturbing for which the matter was reported to the OP.  OPs representative came to repair it after taking Rs.1,100/- but even then the refrigerator did not run regularly and for which the matter was reported to OP who took back refrigerator to their workshop for repair on 03-03-2012 but since then OP did not deliver the said refrigerator after proper repairing.  Complainant reminded them to take action or to replace new one or to refund the price of entire money of the refrigerator but no result was received from the OP even after sending a legal notice on 28-05-2012.  In the above circumstances, the complainant has prayed for an order directing the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.19,800/- along with interest and also Rs.1,100/- which was paid for repairing cost and further compensation and litigation cost etc. 

            Practically after service of the notice of this case OP3 appeared and filed written statement stating that the refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant from concerned manufacturer that HAIER Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd. through the OP3 and the said machine had been used by the complainant for a long period of time and subsequently, the complainant got services from the concerned service centre of the concerned manufacturer with his full satisfaction and by replacement of a new one on 15-01-2009 that is after expiry of two years and thereafter, no connection was ever made with the OP3 but one fine morning the complainant filed the instant case after expiry of 5 years from the date of purchase by making the OP3 and by claiming the refund of the purchase value of the refrigerator even after use of the refrigerator and so for which the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and for which the same shall be dismissed but most interesting factor is that subsequently, OPs 1 and 2 filed a written statement stating that no doubt complainant purchased the refrigerator from OP on 04-11-2007 what had been used by the complainant but subsequently, complainant prayed for replacement and accordingly the said refrigerator was replaced on 29-07-2007 and complainant used and consuming the refrigerator uninterruptedly.  Again the said refrigerator was replaced further on 15-09-2009 and that had been used till 28-01-2012 and OP made necessary repairing again on 21-02-2012 as it was done by the OP as per instruction of the complainant and it is further submitted that warranty period is over already after one year of sale of the said refrigerator and so the present case is not maintainable.

Decision with Reasons

On meticulous study of the complaint and also the documents as filed by the complainant it is found that it is undisputed fact that complainant purchased the refrigerator on 04-11-2007 from OPs and warranty period was for one year and during that period same problem was found and so new refrigerator was admittedly replaced on 29-07-2008.  Thereafter, further a new refrigerator was replaced on 15-01-2009 and warranty period of said refrigerator expired on 14-01-2010 but subsequently, complainant for repairing purpose reported the service centre of the OP1 and OP1’s mechanic went to the house of the complainant on 07-02-2012 and repaired the same.  So, service was rendered by the manufacturer and its service centre always and there was no laches on the part of the OPs1 and 2.  So, in reality as per warranty card complainant claim for replacement cannot be entertained in view of the fact the replaced refrigerator was handed over to the complainant on15-01-2009 whereas warranty period expired on 14-01-2010 but subsequently, reported to service centre for repairing on 07-02-2012 so under any circumstances complainant is not entitled to any replacement of the refrigerator as because warranty period already expired.

            But now, the question is whether OP received back the said refrigerator on 03-03-2012.  In this regard we have gone through the receipt No.1282 customer’s copy heading repair and return and it is found that after receipt and repair the complainant received it on 05-03-2012.  The machine was received by the HAIER Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd. but it has not been returned but HAIER Company reported the complainant on 06-04-2012 that internal condenser had developed leakage and since then this is beyond mechanically repaired so they offer the complainant for replacement it as per standard policy.

            Considering that fact we are convinced to hold under any circumstances the  complainant is not entitled to get any relief for replacement of the said used refrigerator because there was no warranty of the said refrigerator.

            But anyhow the HAIER Company informed him that they may replace by a new one subject to depreciation as per standard policy.  So, it is clear that HAIER Company showed their moral business values, ethics but complainant did not receive it and appeared before this Forum by making such false allegation against seller rather it is proved that HAIER Company gave several replacement and by repairing in all respect since 2007 to 2012 what complainant enjoyed that refrigerator and now this Forum cannot give any relief to the complainant because the liability of the Ops is already discharged on and from 14-01-2010 because on 14-01-2010 warranty of original refrigerator expired but it appears that complainant must have to take such facilities from the OP1 as per offer letter dated 06-04-2012 but not more than that.  Accordingly, we are partly allow this complaint on the basis of offer letter dated 06-04-2012 issued by HAIER Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Hence,

Ordered

That the compliant be and the same is allowed in part as per offer letter of alternate solution for HAIER make refrigerator of the complainant but without any cost against OPs1 and 2 but same is dismissed against OP3. 

OPs1 and 2 are hereby directed to give such relief to the complainant as per offer of alternate solution for Hire make refrigerator of the complainant as made by the OPs1 and 2 and complainant is directed to meet with OP2 at once for getting such relief properly and if he follow it, complainant shall be benefited if he complies with this order and at the same time OPs1 and 2 are also directed to settle the matter amicably but no further order is passed in favour of the complainant.

            Complainant is advised to be more moral in his expression and to settle the matter with the OP2 at Kolkata office and OP2 invariably shall give such relief as per their offer letter as mentioned above.