BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Roopak Bansal s/o Sh. S.K. Bansal, r/o # 23, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1]Malhotra & Co., Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Engineers, S.C.O. 305, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2]Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. c/o A-10, Phase VIII-A, Industrial Area Mohali.

                                  ……Opposite parites

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.A.S. Walia, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Atul Malhotra, Authorised Repre. of OP-1.

Sh.Gangadharan P.V., Authorised Repre. of OP-2.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a compressor of Godrej Make from OP-1 (authorized dealer of spares of OP-2), vide bill no.44488 dated 3.11.07. The complainant stated that at the time of purchase of the compressor, it was told by OP-1 that as per company`s policy the new compressor has a warranty of 5 years. As per the complainant the said compressor stopped working on 20.06.09. The engineer visited complainant house and on checking the compressor told the complainant that the said compressor have outlived its utility. The complainant visited the office of OP-1 and requested to replace the defective compressor as it was under the warranty period of 5 years but OP-1 refused to replace the said defective compressor on the pretext that as per company`s policy, replacement on spares is within one year from the date of sale and no such written policy was shown to the complainant on repeated requests. It was further noticed by the complainant that in 2007, the compressor was sold to him by OP-1 for Rs. 2,550/-, but a similar compressor is available with OP-1 for Rs.2,200/- in the present year 2009 also. The complainant expressed his thought that he was cheated by excess billing or perhaps the compressors being sold separately are not of good quality and as such are being sold at cheaper rates than in 2007. A legal notice was sent by the complainant to OP-1 for copy of the Company`s policy terms and conditions of warrantee/guarantee of replacement of compressor and statement of the price of the said compressor for the last three years as to its MRP and rates at which similar compressors been sold during the last two years.  The complainant received the reply from OP-1 on the said legal notice but was of no use at all because the required details were not sent by OP-1. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

2.             In the written reply OP-1 admitted the factual matrix of the case and stated that at the time of purchase of the compressor they have informed the complainant that the compressor carries a warranty for one year only. OP-1 further stated that the company engineer, who visited the house of the complainant for attending the complaint, told the complainant that the warranty of the compressor is of one year only and the same has expired on 3.11.08 i.e. after one year and the new compressor will be replaced only on chargeable basis. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading OP-1 prayed for dismissal with compensation for filing a frivolous/vexatious complaint.

3.             In the written reply OP-2, pleaded the similar pleas as pleaded by OP-1. OP-2 also stated that all their competitors give only one year warranty for the new compressor and admitted that they do not give any written warranty card but their dealers are advised to inform customers verbally or to write on the bill being issued. OP-2 accepted that their dealer has forgotten to write the same on the bill issued to the complainant. As against the variation of the rate of the compressor in 2009, it is contended by OP-2 that the rate of the compressor varies from time to time, which depends up on the market competition and the schemes floated by the company. OP-2 denied to give the last three years rates of the compressor and stated that it is very difficult for a dealer to go through each and every bill issued by them.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading OP-2 has also prayed for dismissal with compensation for filing a frivolous/vexatious complaint.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and Authorized Representatives of the Opposite parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             Annexure C-1 is the cash memo vide which the compressor was purchased by the complainant from OP-1.  Annexure C-2 is the hand bill displayed by OP-1 showing that the compressor carried a warranty of 1+4 years.  There is no mention on this pamphlet, if the complainant has to pay any amount or satisfy any another condition for availing the said warranty of 5 years.  In the present case the compressor was purchased on 3.11.07 and stopped working on 20.06.09 within about 2 years.  It was therefore within warranty as per annexure C-2 and it is the liability of OP-1 to replace the same free-of-cost. 

7.             The contention of the OP-1 is that infact the warranty given by the OP-2 was for one year only and the complainant could get the 4 years optional service by paying some additional amount to OP-2, which has not been paid and therefore the said additional 4 years warranty would not be available to the complainant.  There is no merit in this contention because it was no where exhibited by OP-1 if the complainant was to pay any additional amount or to buy 4 years additional warranty by executing any document.  The OP-1 in his reply has mentioned in para 9 that the dealer forgot to write the same on the bill issued by them. The contention of OP-1 that the warranty was only for 1 year is however falsified by Annexure C-2 displayed by them that it carried a warranty of 1+4 years.  It is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-1 to display such terms and conditions which subsequently they have no intention to comply with.  It was necessary for the OP-1 to have given the details of the additional 4 years warranty on the bill itself  if it was so required which they have failed to mention.  It therefore does not lie in his mouth to say that the compressor carried only one year warranty or that the 4 years warranty was optional on payment of some charges. 

8.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed. The OP-1 is directed to replace the compressor with a new compressor free-of-charge and also pay to the complainant Rs.5,00/- as compensation and Rs.550/- as costs of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they would be liable also to refund the purchase price of Rs.2,550/- and pay the entire amount alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e.15.09.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.