RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.365 of 2001

Messrs BPL Limited, 311/1-2, Near Bata Dharam

Kanta, Opposite Sihani Chungi, Delhi-Meerut Road,

Ghaziabad through its Regional Service Head,

UP, Lucknow, B-184, Nirala Nagar,

Lucknow.                                                         ...Appellant.

Versus

1-  Mr. Premnath Arora s/o Jodharam Arora,

     R/o Station Road, P.S. Kotwali, Moradabad.

2- M/s Super Star Electronics, 3, Deepak Building,

    Budh Bazar, Station Road, P.S. Kotwali,

    Moradabad though its Prop. Shri Arvind Kumar

    Khettrapal.                                            ….Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

None responds.

Date   19.1.2016

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- The matter relates to replacement of a refrigerator on ground of manufacturing defects. The complaint for deficiency in service was allowed by the Ld.   DCDRF-I, Moradabad on 5.1.2001. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal was filed on 24.2.2002. It has been submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise the

(2)

appellant Messrs BPL Limited will suffer irreparable financial loss.

          From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Sri Premnath Arora purchased one BPL Refrigerator Model F 252, Serial no.60100593 for Rs.18,200.00 on 26.5.1999 from M/s Super Star Electronics, Station Road, Moradabad. M/s Super Star Electronics was the authorized dealer of the appellant M/s BPL Limited, Delhi Meerut Road, Ghaziabad. It was alleged in the complaint no.70 of 2000 that the refrigerator had inherent manufacturing defect; and it failed to provide necessary services from the very first day. Consequently, a number of complaints were made to the dealer concerned. However, the dealer kept on ignoring the complaints and ultimately, he directed the respondent/complainant to take the refrigerator to the Service Centre of the appellant M/s BPL Limited. The refrigerator was handed over in the business complex of M/s Super Star Electronics on 22.4.2000. However, the appellant or its authorized dealer did not take any action even after this. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent/complainant Premnath Arora filed complaint case no.70 of 2000 for redressal of his grievances.

The appellant M/s BPL Limited and its authorized dealer M/s Super Star Electronics in their respective written statements have admitted that the refrigerator in question was sold to the respondent on 26.5.1999 for Rs.18,200.00. They also admitted that the refrigerator carried a warranty period of one year and the refrigerator

(3)

was handed over in the business complex of the dealer on 22.4.2000 i.e. within the guarantee/warranty period with a complaint for defective services. They have, however, denied remaining allegations. The appellant M/s BPL Limited, during the course of hearing, agreed to replace the refrigerator. It also took a plea that a brand new blue coloured refrigerator had been kept in the show-room for this purposes and the respondent/ complainant can take it in place of the defective one. 

The Forum below, on the basis of facts, circumstances and evidence on record directed the appellant to replace the refrigerator of the same make power and colour (white) or else return the principal amount with interest @18% p.a. from 26.5.1999 (i.e. the date of purchase of the refrigerator) till full and final payment. It further directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000.00 as compensation and Rs.1,500.00 as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal has been preferred on 24.2.2001.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Sri Premnath Arora received the new refrigerator as replacement during the pendency of the appeal. His Ld. Counsel Sri Arun Tandan has made an endorsement to this effect in the order sheet. With the acceptance of a brand new refrigerator in place of defective piece, the relationship between the parties as Consumer and Service Provider came to an end. Consequently, all further proceedings in this matter became infructuous. No further steps is required in the matter. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 

(4)

No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                                (Sanjai Kumar)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.4