DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> C.C.No.44 of 14.2.2007<br /> Decided on 7.5.2007 <br /> <br /> Balour Singh Son of Sh. Jangir Singh Son of Sh. Kishan Singh, Resident of Ward No 15, Near Bus Stand, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Gupta Electronics, Bohar Wala Chowk, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda through its Partner/Proprietor.<br /> 2.Godrej Appliances Ltd., 4, Ground Floor, Film Centre, Tradeo, Mumbai-400034 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Representative.<br /> .. Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaints under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Yogesh Arora, Authorised Representative of : opposite party No.2 in person. <br /> : Opposite party No. 1 exparte <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. On the basis of the allurements and tall claims made by opposite party No.1 about the Godrej Refrigerator, complainant purchased this type of Refrigerator from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 3503 dated 1.6.2003 for consideration of Rs.7,250/-. Warranty for five years on its motor was given. There was persistent problem of less cooling. Refrigerator was not making ice. Complaint was lodged with opposite party No.1. It was sending its Mechanic who could not rectify the defect. Complainant was apprised that there is defect in the motor of the Refrigerator. Assurance was given by opposite party No.1 that the matter would be reported to opposite party No.2 and that Refrigerator would be got repaired or replaced. He alleges that he has been deprived of the use of the Refrigerator as opposite parties have neither repaired nor replaced it. He got served legal notice upon opposite party No.1 through his counsel. He further alleges mental tension, agony and loss to physical health caused to him as well as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to repair/replace the Refrigerator or in the alternative to refund its price alongwith interest @ 18 % P.A from the date of purchase till realization; pay Rs.50,000/- for mental tension, agony, loss of physical health and reputation and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party No.1 which filed the reply of the complaint on 8.3.2007 stating that report regarding the defect in the Refrigerator which was sold to the complainant, was made to the company as the responsibility for compensation and for providing service is upon it. On 29.4.2007, no one put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.1. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.2 filed separate reply. According to it, no complaint was ever received by it from the complainant regarding the defect in the Refrigerator. Product is out of warranty. Warranty for the Compressor is of five years and on other parts of one year. Complainant got the Fridge repaired from an unauthorised person. Hence, warranty has become void. It has shown readiness and willingness to replace the Compressor subject to the condition that sealed system gas charges are chargeable as per terms and conditions of the warranty.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Balour Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit(Ex.C.1), photocopy of legal notice dated 18.12.2006 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of Cash Memo dated 1.6.2003 (Ex.C.3) and photocopy of postal receipt (Ex.C.4).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite party No.2, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Yogesh Arora, its Sr. Service Executive, photocopy of service card (Ex.R.2) and photocopy of Warranty (Ex.R.3).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and Sh. Yogesh Arora, Authorised Representative of opposite party No.2 in person. Apart from this, we have gone through the record and have considered written arguments submitted by the complainant and opposite party No.2.<br /> 7. Purchase of the Refrigerator manufactured by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1 by the complainant was not disputed before us. Even otherwise, this stands proved from the affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant and copy of the Cash Memo Ex.C.3 dated 1.6.2003. Complainant admits that opposite party No.1 had provided warranty for its motor for five years. Opposite party No.2 does not deny the warranty. Its plea is that warranty on Compressor was of five years and on all other parts of one year. Copy of the warranty proved by opposite party No.2 is Ex.R.3.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by the learned counsel for the complainant are that Refrigerator has problem of less cooling and it is not making ice. Defect in the motor of the Refrigerator could not be rectified by the Mechanics of opposite party No.1 on the basis of the complaint lodged by him. Since, defect has not been removed, complainant has served legal notice upon opposite party No.1 through his counsel and copy of the notice is Ex.C.2.<br /> 9. Sh. Yogesh Arora, Senior Service Executive on behalf of opposite party No.2 argued that warranty on all other parts of the Refrigerator except Compressor has come to an end and that opposite party No. 2 is ready and willing to repair the Compressor subject to charges as per warranty conditions.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments. It is not the case of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator. Warranty on all other parts except the Compressor has gone as Refrigerator was purchased on 1.6.2003 and it was of one year on other parts. Parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty. Complainant alleges that there is defect in the Compressor/Motor of the Refrigerator. Opposite party No.2 is ready to repair the Compressor subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty. Term and condition No. 7 is reproduced as under :- <br /> 7. ”Sealed system gas charging and consumables will be charged for any such repairs after one year from the date of purchase”.<br /> Since Compressor is to be repaired after one year from 1.6.2003, complainant is liable to pay the charges as per term and condition referred to above. Defect was reported to opposite party No.1. Despite this, defect in the Compressor has not been removed/ got removed. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties, who are dealer and manufacturer respectively, particularly when opposite party No.1 has not established that it had forwarded the complaint to opposite party No.2. Refrigerator was purchased by the complainant from the dealer. Complainant knew only the dealer and not the manufacturer of the product. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Ashok Khan Vs. Abdul Karim and others-2005 CTJ-1207(CP)(NCDRC). <br /> 11. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Complainant is entitled to the repair of the Compressor, if repairable subject to payment of charges as per term and condition No. 7 of the warranty or its replacement, if not repairable. Complainant is craving for damages of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension, agony, loss of physical health and reputation. As discussed above and as has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Ashok Khan (supra), liability of the dealer as well as manufacturer is joint as well as several. Compressor of the Refrigerator has neither been repaired nor replaced within the warranty period. Accordingly, complainant deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.1,000/-.<br /> 12.. As per discussion made above, question of replacement of the Refrigerator or in the alternative refund of its price, does not arise. <br /> 13. In the premises written above, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :- <br /> ( i ) Repair the Compressor of the Refrigerator, if repairable or replace it, if not repairable. In case of repair of the Compressor of the Refrigerator, complainant would be liable to pay the charges as per term and condition No. 7 of the warranty, reproduced above.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance with regard to payment of costs and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till realization.<br /> ( iv ) Compliance with regard to the remaining relief be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 14. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File<br /> be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 7.5.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br />