Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is moved u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Facts of the complaint case, in brief, are that the Respondent No. 1 purchased one refrigerator from the Respondent No. 2 on 16-08-2014.  Employees of the said shop delivered and installed the said refrigerator to the house of the Respondent No. 1.  Next morning, however, it was detected that water was leaking out of the said refrigerator and therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was immediately apprised of the matter. As per its advice, the Respondent No. 1 made contact with the service centre of the Godrej Company.  However, they too failed to fix the problem and asked him to use the refrigerator after lowering the regulator to lower temperature.  Although the service engineer insisted on signing the service report, he refused to do so.  Then the concerned personnel asked him to show the bill and after comparing the sl. no. mentioned in the bill vis-à-vis  body of the refrigerator, they threatened to stop all future service to him.  Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 informed the matter to all concerned, but to no avail.  Therefore, he filed the complaint case.  The Respondent No. 2 resisted the complaint contending inter alia that on 16-08-2014, it supplied one refrigerator bearing Sl. No. 1244.  As the Respondent No. 1 refused to receive the same, it was replaced on the very next day, i.e., on 17-08-2014 bearing Sl. No. 1345 and the Respondent No. 1 received the same and signed the delivery challan voluntarily.

Notice was duly served upon all the Respondents.  While the Respondent No. 1 defended his case in person, the Respondent No. 2 was represented by its Ld. Advocate.  I have heard the parties and gone through the documents on record.

It is the case of the Appellant that the defective refrigerator bearing Sl. No. 1244 was replaced with another refrigerator bearing Sl. No. 1345 on 17-08-2014.  However, nowhere in his petition of complaint, the Respondent No. 1 made any whisper in this regard.  Further, the Respondent No. 1 challenged the authenticity of the subsequent noting on the delivery challan bearing Sl. No. 1491.

Be that as it may, fact remains that the allegation of defect in the refrigerator has not been proved through an expert which was expedient for deriving at a just and fair decision in the matter.  In view of this, I deem it prudent to refer the matter back to the Forum for fresh adjudication of the dispute after obtaining expert opinion in this regard.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 19-08-2019.