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.63/2012

SH. PRADEEP SHARMA

S/O SH. K.D. SHARMA

FLAT NO.218, SECTOR 13 B,

DWARKA,

NEW DELHI-110075

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

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

GODREJ BHAVAN, SHER SHAH SURI MARG,

OKHLA,

NEW DELHI-110065

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                    Date of Order:10.07.2015

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator on 31.12.2006 from OP which was delivered to him on 01.1.2007.  It was an exchange offer.  The total price of the refrigerator was Rs.14,990/-.  After deducting the amount of Rs.4000/- towards cost of old fridge, complainant  made payment of Rs.10,990/- to OP.  In March 2010, fridge was not cooling properly.  Accordingly, a complaint was made to OP.  The complainant was not satisfied with the services rendered by OP.  The matter was taken by the complainant  before Delhi Govt. Mediation and Conciliation Centre at pre-litigation stage and there the matter was settled between the parties.  The terms of settlement are reproduced as under:-

1. It has been agreed that OP should repair and renovate the said fridge between 01.12.2010 and 10.12.2010.
2. It has been agreed that after the delivery of the fridge on being repaired, service warranty of six months from the said date shall be extended to complainant.
3. It has been agreed that OP shall also deliver a Micro Wave Kit to complainant between 01.12.2010 and 10.12.2010.
4. The present settlement has been arrived at voluntarily by both the parties without any coercion.  Both the parties have agreed to this compromise and both shall be bound by this mediated settlement.

In fact complainant has not filed any complaint before this Forum rather he has filed a contempt petition against OP before this Forum for not complying with the terms and conditions of settlement.  At the outset it is pointed out that no such contempt petition lies before this Forum for not complying with the terms and conditions of settlement arrived at before aforesaid Mediation and Conciliation Centre.  This Forum has not referred the present matter to the aforesaid Conciliation Centre hence there is no question of contempt petition lying against the OP before this Forum.

For the sake of argument the present contempt petition has been treated as a complaint by this Forum.  Now the question is whether complainant Mr. Pradeep Sharma is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Mr. Pradeep Sharma is not the person who has purchased the fridge.  The fridge is purchased by his father.  It is nowhere mentioned in the complaint that complainant is using the fridge with the approval of his father so has come within the ambit of “consumer”.  So on the face of it, the complainant  Mr. Pradeep Sharma is not a consumer. 

Assuming for the sake of arguments, Mr. Pradeep Sharma was using the fridge with the implied approval of his father and as such he is a consumer it is to be seen whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is not disputed by OP that the settlement which was arrived at by Delhi Govt. Mediation and Conciliation Centre was a voluntary settlement.  One Mr. Majaz Khan, Branch Commercial Manager of OP filed his affidavit towards evidence and in para 5 of his affidavit he has specifically stated that the said settlement had been arrived at voluntarily by both the parties and OP has strictly adhered to it.  Meaning thereby that the settlement was arrived at between both the parties amicably out of free will.  Now the question is whether OP has not rendered the services as per settlement arrived at between the parties.  Complainant  himself has placed on record annexure i.e. a letter written by OP to Mr. Pradeep Sharma wherein they have specifically stated that after the compromise dated 25.11.2010 they have rectified defective refrigerator and as per requirement handed over the same in proper working condition.  OP has admitted that a call was received on 19.12.2010 from Mr. Pradeep Sharma regarding non-functioning of the fridge.  It was stated that they have tried to send their technician at the place of complainant for checking but unfortunately the complainant  was not able to give proper appointment time.  The grievance of the complainant  is regarding non compliance of clause 1 and 2 of the settlement.  But OP has stated that they have complied with the terms of the settlement and it was nowhere stated in the statement that the fridge will be taken by the OP to their factory for repair.  It is stated that the fridge was repaired at the place of complainant .  It is not disputed that fridge was repaired on 10.12.2010.

For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that present proceedings are not maintainable.

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

    (EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ)                                                             (A.S. YADAV)

            MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT