Delhi

South II

CC/305/2010

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Godrej & Boyce MFG Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

04 Mar 2016

ORDER

Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/305/2010
 
1. Naresh Kumar
B-4 Type-III Safdarjung Hospital Staff Quarter Kidwai Nagar west New delhi-23
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S Godrej & Boyce MFG Co Ltd
Godrej Bhawan Mathura Road Okhla New Delhi-65
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S Yadav PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D .R Tamta MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

 

Case No.305/2010

     

 

SH. NARESH KUMAR

B-4, TYPE-III, SAFDARJUNG

HOSPITAL STAFF QUARTER,

KIDWAI NAGAR WEST,

NEW DELHI-110023

 

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

           

                                    VS.

 

M/S GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD.,

GODREJ BHAWAN, MATHURA ROAD,

OKHLA, NEW DELHI-110065

 

      …………..RESPONDENTS

 

 

Date of Order: 04.03.2016

 

O R D E R

 

A.S. Yadav – President

 

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator in May 2005.  That refrigerator sopped working after some days.  Complainant called customer care.  The executive came who advised to get the refrigerator exchanged.  Thereafter complainant contacted the customer care and they informed that they will replace the refrigerator on the condition that he would take AMC for four years on the cost of Rs.600/-.  Complainant finding no way agreed to it and the refrigerator was replaced in November 2006 with AMC of four years.  In April 2009 refrigerator stopped working.  Complainant called customer care and some parts were replaced.  Complainant requested for replacement of rusted doors of his refrigerator however the same were not replaced despite contacting the OP number of time.  Ultimately executive came and took Rs.450/- in October 2009 from complaint as transportation charges for bringing the new doors.  Even thereafter the doors were not replaced.  Complainant was informed that the company has stopped manufacturing of the refrigerator .  It is prayed that OP be directed to replace the double doors of refrigerator or change refrigerator with another higher capacity refrigerator of the choice of complainant.

 

OP in the reply took the plea that there was no deficiency in service on their part and this complaint has been filed simply to gain undue enrichment from OP. It is stated that as and when complaint was lodged the same was attended.  However the rusted doors could not be replaced due to the non-availability of the doors.  However during all these occasions the refrigerator was working perfectly with no technical defect in it.  As they could not replace the door, as a goodwill gesture OP offered same capacity, running model refrigerator to complainant but he refused to take the same.  They are still ready to replace the refrigerator with the refrigerator  of same kind and capacity to resolve the case. 

 

Complainant in rejoinder denied that OP ever replaced the refrigerator.

 

We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and carefully gone through the written submissions made by the parties.

 

Perusal of the file shows that during the pendency of the case the talks of settlement were going on between the parties and in fact the refrigerator was replaced to complainant on 31.07.2014.  It is stated that the replaced refrigerator is also defective.  The defect was rectified on 22.09.2014.  Complainant made a statement that he is satisfied with the product.  However, complainant stated that he wants to contest on the point to get cost of litigation etc.  In fact during the course of arguments, complainant admitted that the replaced refrigerator is working.

 

The fact of the matter is that the refrigerator is replaced and working nicely and it is also a fact that the door of the refrigerator  were rusted and the same were not replaced and may be for the reason due the non-availability but that is not the concern of the complainant.  Though later on the refrigerator was replaced on 31.07.2014.  For the aforesaid reason, we find that it was a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

 

OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

 

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

                                                                                     

 

             (D.R. TAMTA)                                                         (A.S. YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S Yadav]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D .R Tamta]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.