Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No.2008 of 2003
M/s Whirlpool of India Limited, A company
Incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956, having its registered
office at 7th Floor, Atma Ram House, 1, Tolstoy
Marg, New Delhi-110001 and Head Office at
A-8, Vaitalik Building, Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110067 and one of its Branch Office
at YMCA Compound, 13, Rana Pratap Marg,
Lucknow. …Appellant.
1- Miss Laxmi Gupta d/o Smt. K.D. Gupta,
R/o Railway Station Road, Lakhimpur
Khiri through M/s Khiri Gun House,
Station Road, Lakhimpur Khiri (U.P.)
2- M/s Balaji Agencies, 9, Villobee Market,
Kacheri Road, Lakhimpur Khiri (U.P.) .…Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.
Sri Ashok Shukla, Advocate for appellant.
None for the respondents.
Date: 20.4.2022
JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 24.6.2003 passed by the District Forum, Lakhimpur Khiri in complaint case no.258 of 1995.
The grounds of the appeal are that, that the complainant has purchased one refrigerator from the respondent no.2/ opposite party no.1 in the complaint case, on 20.3.1991. The complainant claimed defects in the refrigerator since from the date of purchase and lodged a complaint on 5.7.1995 with the respondent no.2. The complainant also issued notice to the
(2)
opposite party no.1 on 28.7.1995 which was replied on 3.8.1995. The service engineer of the appellant visited the complainant’s house on 19.8.1995. The complainant filed a complaint for replacement of the refrigerator with new one alongwith Rs.1 lac on account of financial loss, physical harassment and mental agony. The complainant also claimed Rs.4,50,000.00 from the opposite party no.1 on account of damages and loss suffered.
The complainant has originally impleaded M/s Expo Machinery Limited as manufacturer of the fridge. He was served and filed reply denying allegations. The fridge has been set right on 16.12.1995 and 21.5.1996 to the full satisfaction of the complainant. The claim of the complainant was repudiated holding that he did not suffer any financial loss. During the proceeding, M/s Expo Machinery Ltd. also filed an application for seeking direction of the Hon’ble Forum to direct the complainant to place on record the warranty card which the complainant did not file. The ld. Forum on 24.6.2003 pleased to allow the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund the cost of refrigerator alongwith interest @10% from 20.3.1991 and also directed to pay Rs.2,000.00 as damages on account of mental agony.
The impugned order is erroneous, against evidence and liable to be set aside. The refrigerator was purchased on 20.3.1991 and warranty for replace has expired on 19.3.1993. The impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises. The ld. District Forum totally ignored the fact that the refrigerator was set right. The term of the warranty has already been expired. There is no manufacturing defect in the
(3)
refrigerator, hence, no question of replacement arises. Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may please to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order.
We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri Ashok Shukla. None appeared for the respondents. We have perused all the pleadings, evidence and documents present on record.
We have perused the judgment of the ld. Forum. The learned Forum has said that the warranty of the fridge was for one year while the warranty of the sealed compressor was of six years. The opposite party has replaced outer sheet freezer, condenser et cetera on 24 May 1996 after the expiry of the warranty period. We have seen the nature of complaint and it has made in as no cooling. The job carried out on 21 May 1996 was “leakage from joint of fridge’s assembly, fridges assembly change – gas charged. Fridge working OK.” In the job card dated 19 December 1995, compressor has been changed. In addition to it so many other repairs were performed as per customer satisfaction certificate of the said date. It clearly shows that the compressor was defective from the very beginning and this comes under manufacturing defect because the compressor is the main part or you may say it is the heart of the fridge and if it is changed within warranty period, it clearly establishes the fact that this fridge had manufacturing defect and it should have been changed our replaced.
The learned Forum has passed the order according to law and we find no ground to interfere in that order. The appeal is liable to be dismissed cost.
(4)
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed with cost. The judgment and order dated 24.6.2003 passed by the District Forum, Lakhimpur Khiri in complaint case no.258 of 1995 is confirmed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA II
Court 2
