DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
No. DF / Central/ 2015
Consumer Complaint No | : | CC 29/2014 |
Date of Institution | : | |
| | | |
Sanjeev Kumar
H. No. 4520,
2/3 Daiwada,
Nai Sarak New Delhi-110006
..........Complainant
Versus
- M/s Chawla Electronics (Regd)
3775, N. S. Marg,
Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002
- M/s Godrej Company,
Godrej Bhawan, 2nd Floor,
Shershah Suri marg, Okhla, New Delhi-110065 ..........Respondent/OP
BEFORE
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
NUPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
V. K. DABAS, MEMBER
ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
On 19.2.2013, the complainant had purchased a Godrej Refrigerator from OP1 for a sum of Rs.11,200/-. It is alleged by the complainant that the refrigerator did not work properly right from the date of installation and makes a loud noise. The complainant had taken up
Page 1. Order CC 29/14
the matter with the Ops on 27.2.2013, 2.3.2013 and 9.4.2013 ; the service engineer of the OP had visited the complainant but could not remove the defect. The complainant again took up the matter with the Ops and on 9.12.2013 , the compressor of the fridge was replaced. However, the fault still persisted. The complainant again wrote a letter to Ops number 1 and 2 on 10.1.2014 and requested that the refrigerator be replaced the Ops however did not oblige which led the complainant to approach this forum with the present complaint. The Ops have contested the complaint. They have denied any deficiency on their part and has claimed that the complaint has no merits. Paras 2 and 3 of the parawise reply is relevant for the purpose of decision of this complaint and are reproduced as under:
2.That the contents of Para 3 to 9 the complainant has given purchase details therein is accepted to the extent that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator from OP1. It is denied that the same was not functioning properly or making loud noise. The noise of the compressor installed therein was within the specified limits only but the complainant insisted us to replace the compressor. Accordingly, the compressor got replaced by OP just to give mental satisfaction to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that now-a-days high speed compressors are being installed to get fast cooling at less electricity consumption, which creates slightly more noise as compared to the slow speed compressors being, used in early days, hence the issue. Since there is no defect so called loud noise of the compressor by the complainant as explained above there is no question of getting the same removed as desired by the complainant. The noise of the compressor is very much
Page 2. Order CC 29/14
within the permissible prescribed limits and need no rectification thereof.
3. That the contents of para 10 & 11 of the complaint are correct to the extent that the complainant had approached OP for replacement of his said perfectly fine working old refrigerator and the same was turned down by OP as the demand of the complainant was unjustified as there was no defect in the refrigerator in question.
The Ops have reiterated that the complaint has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard argument advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
A perusal of the written statement filed on record shows that the refrigerator was not functioning properly from the very beginning. Its compressor was replaced once but the defect in the refrigerator could not be removed. During the pendency of this complaint, OP2 had made a statement on 10.10.2014 that it was prepared to replace the refrigerator. On 21.4.2015, OP2 was asked to comply with the said offer. However ,till date OP2 has not cared to repair the refrigerator nor has given due service to the complainant as was required of it. It appears to us that the refrigerator supplied to the complainant had some inherent defects and despite being attended to by the service engineers of OP2, its defect could not be removed. In this regard we may note the following judgments.
In R. Sachdev Vs. ICICI Bank, , FA762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ what is the use of such good or article if it loses its utility after a period of one month of
Page 3. Order CC 29/14
its purchase . The object of the Consumer Protection Act, it is safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders for selling substandard or defective goods.”
In another case titled Col. Ravinder Pal Brar Vs. Asian Motors, FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007 , the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ The disputes between the consumer and the service providers and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and manufacturers to refund the cost of the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumers, cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.”
We therefore, hold OP2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 11,200/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. 7.2.2014 till payment.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 7500/- as compensation for pain and agony which will also include the cost of litigation.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP fail to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
(NUPUR CHANDNA) (DR V K DABAS) (RAKESH KAPOOR)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
