Haryana

StateCommission

A/1037/2016

GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.K.YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.S.AHLUWALIA

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

STAE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.1037  of 2016

 Date of Institution:03.11.2016

  Date  of  Decision:15.12.2016

 

M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Limited, Plot No.A-40, Phase-VIII-A, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Branch Manager Commercial Sh.Majaz Khan.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      R.K.Yadav, E-17, GJUS&T Campus, guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar.

…..Respondent

2.      M/s R.K.Electronics, 8, Flamingo Market, Hisar, authorized dealer of Godrej Appliances at Hisar.

3.      M/s Venus Refrigeration Care Centre, 116. Red Cross Market, Railway Road, Hisar authorized service centre Godrej Appliances at Hisar.

…..Performa Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.J.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

It was alleged by complainant that   on 18.07.2008 he purchased one double door refrigerator for a sum of Rs.20,400/- from opposite party (O.P.) No.3.  The refrigerator started giving problem since purchase. He lodged compliant with authorized service centre of godrej Co. at Hisar several times, but, same was repaired against  payment of Rs.1300/-. Again on 05.02.2011 problem started in the refrigerator. Complaint was lodged with service centre  and same was repaired against payment of Rs.900/-. Thereafter on 08.04.2011 complaint of noise problem was lodged with O.Ps., but, they did not repair the same. After inspection on 17.12.2012 official of local service centre orally told him that there was manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.  It was also causing frequent breakage of glasses to cover the vegetable basket. The company replaced refrigerator and charged Rs.5350/- from him. The changed refrigerator was not covered under the warranty, so Rs.4831/- were charged from him as annual maintenance for period of two years.   Replaced refrigerator was also not working properly. It’s motor and fan had to be changed within month of supply. Again on 29.07.2013 he lodged complaint with O.Ps. as cooling system was not working properly.

2.      O.Ps.  appeared, but, they  failed to file their reply and their defence was struck off vide order dated 05.03.2014.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Forum”)  allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 16.10.2014 and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the opposite parties, either to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with a new one, of same make, with usual warranty as of a new one within a period of one month, of getting cop0y of this order, otherwise to refund Rs.20,400/- cost of refrigerator; Rs.5350/- cost of difference of the second refrigerator; Rs.4831/- Annual maintenance charges and Rs.5000/- of gas refilling, transportation charges etc. i.e. total sum of Rs.35,581/-, to the complainant, with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 12.08.2013 till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.500, against the opposite parties. After getting these amounts, the complainant shall be bound to return the refrigerator with him with a period of one month.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.1-appellant  has preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      It is opined by this Commission in Revision Petition No.39 of 2016 titled as M/s Pareena Infrastructure Vs. Ms. Nell Acharya decided on 01.07.2016 that matter can be remanded even without issuing notice to other party. Learned District forum wrongly struck off the defence.  It is the golden principle of law that proper opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the other party and one cannot be condemned unheard. 

7.      The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if appellant-O.Ps. are afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before the learned District Forum.  Order dated 05.03.2014 vide which the defence was struck off and impugned order dated 16.10.2014 are hereby set aside. Let the appellant be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

8.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Hisar on 10.01.2017.

 

 

December 15th, 2016             Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                     Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.