DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.34 of 09-02-2017

Decided on 23-10-2017

Rimmi aged about 31 years W/o Loveleen Sharma Near Bajwa House, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Bathinda District Bathinda, Punjab.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Godrej & Boyee Manufacturing Company Limited, Appliance Division, Plot No.11, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079, through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Rama Enterprises, Post office Bazaar, Bathinda through its Prop./Manager.

3.M/s Radhey Fridge Care Centre Opp Shiv Mandir Near Mehna Chowk, Bathinda, through its Prop. (Deleted)

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Ms.Rimmi in person.

Opposite party No.1: Ex-parte.

For opposite party No.2: Sh.Pardeep Sharma, Advocate.

Opposite party No.3: Deleted.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Rimmi (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 is manufacturer and opposite party No.2 is authorized dealer for Godrej products such as fridge etc.

3. It is alleged that the complainant purchased Godrej refrigerator for Rs.15,500/- vide invoice No.2163 dated 29.2.2016 from opposite party No.2 with one year guarantee on all parts and its performance. The refrigerator started giving troubles from the beginning as there was problem of moisture in all articles kept therein and vegetables started damaging. Opposite parties replaced this refrigerator with new one on 18.8.2016 having found the manufacturing defect and provided extended guarantee of one year.

4. It is also alleged that soon after replacement, the new refrigerator again started giving same trouble of moisture. The complainant sent the photographs of damaged articles to opposite parties on 24.8.2016 and lodged the complaint on 27.8.2016, but to no effect.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. It is also alleged that the complainant and her family have suffered mental agony and frustration etc. She has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony etc. and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint.

5. In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.3 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

6. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version whereas none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 despite calling the case repeatedly. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it.

7. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable against it. The complainant has no locus-standi and cause-of-action to file the complaint against opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has been unnecessarily dragged in the false litigation. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant and liable to be dismissed.

8. On merits, it is denied that opposite party No.2 is authorized dealer. It is not denied that the complainant purchased refrigerator, but it is further mentioned that the guarantee/warranty, if any, is given by opposite party No.1. It is denied that the complainant made any complaint to opposite party No.2 after purchase of refrigerator. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

10. In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavits dated 24.4.2017 and 9.2.2017, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C3); photocopy of builty dated 18.8.2016, (Ex.C4); photocopy of challan, (Ex.C5); photographs, (Ex.C6 and Ex.C7) and closed the evidence.

11. Opposite party No.2 failed to produce the evidence despite repeated opportunities. Consequently, evidence of opposite party No.2 was closed by order on 24.7.2017.

12. We have heard complainant and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and gone through the file carefully.

13. The complainant has reiterated her stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by the complainant that copy of invoice, (Ex.C3) proves that she purchased the Refrigerator from opposite party No.2. Builty, (Ex.C4) and Challan, (Ex.C5) prove that earlier refrigerator was replaced by opposite party No.1. The complainant has alleged that there is defect in the replaced refrigerator also. There is trouble of moisture. The photographs, (Ex.C6 to Ex.C8) are produced to corroborate this version. Opposite party No.1 has not come forward to contest the complaint. Opposite party No.2 has not produced evidence in rebuttal to evidence of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint be accepted.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has submitted that the complainant has got replaced the refrigerator from the manufacturer. This fact is admitted by the complainant also. Therefore, in case of any problem in replaced refrigerator also, company is liable. Opposite party No.2 has pleaded that no complaint has been made to it and there is nothing to prove any complaint made by the complainant to it. As the complainant has got replaced the refrigerator directly from the company. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2, which is simply authorized dealer.

15. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

16. Undisputed facts are that the complainant purchased refrigerator from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1. As per complainant, due to moisture problem, refrigerator was got replaced from the manufacturer. The builty, (Ex.C4) and challan, (Ex.C5) corroborate the version of the complainant. Now, the version of the complainant is that there is moisture problem in replaced refrigerator also and opposite party No.1 has not attended to her complaints. Opposite party No.1 has not come forward to contest the complaint. Therefore, it is to be accepted that opposite party No.1 has failed to attend the complaint of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service.

17. The complainant has prayed for refund of price of refrigerator, but there is nothing to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator entitling her for refund of price of refrigerator. She has also filed complaint against opposite party No.2, but as per complainant herself, she has got replaced the refrigerator, which was purchased from opposite party No.2. The builty, (Ex.C4) and challan, (Ex.C5) also prove that the refrigerator was got replaced by the complainant directly from opposite party No.1. As such, in case of any problem, only opposite party No.1 is liable.

18. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1 only and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is directed to do needful to make the refrigerator properly in working order.

19. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

20. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

21. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    23-10-2017

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member