Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:-

Heard Shri Mangesh Raut/A.R.for appellant/M/s. Sumaria Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

          In this appeal, notice before admission was issued on 14/10/2010.  The notices have been sent on 18/12/2010 returnable on 25/01/2011.  However, acknowledgment of the respondent/complainant is not received.  However, that does not detain us because the matter is for admission and therefore, we heard authorized representative of appellant on the point of admission.

          This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.545/2006 decided on 24/08/2010.  The admitted facts are as follows:

          That the respondent/complainant has purchased the refrigerator of Godrej Company-model no.GF-42 ELE. The price of said refrigerator was `29,990/-.  This refrigerator was given to the complainant in exchange and by accepting the old refrigerator for consideration of `10,000/-.  Thus, the above model was given on payment of `20,090/-.  When the packing was taken at home, it was found that vegetable and sweets etc. were kept  in it and said refrigerator was in damaged condition and therefore, appellant assured the respondent/complainant that within two days i.e. by Thursday the refrigerator will be replaced  and till that date the refrigerator may be used by the respondent/complainant.  Respondent believed in representative of the appellant.  However, subsequently refrigerator was not replaced and therefore, there was a consumer complaint.

          It is to be noted that appellant is having a series of shop in the Mumbai area and therefore, the proprietors and directors of the private limited company cannot attend all the shops and these shops been looked after by the representative and employees.  One of the employees, who was present for delivery of the refrigerator in question when found that refrigerator was in damaged condition has given a letter to the respondent/complainant to the effect that on opening the package  the vegetable leaf tray was found in defective condition and therefore, giving an assurance that refrigerator will be replaced within two days.  Said letter is on record.  It is dated 03/07/2004 i.e. the next day of the delivery of the refrigerator on 02/07/2004.  Therefore in view of this letter the appellant was under obligation to replace said refrigerator and therefore, since it was not replaced, the refrigerator was in use of the respondent.  All these aspects were taken into consideration by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has found that appellant was under obligation to replace the said refrigerator.  It had failed to discharge said obligation.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has also found that refrigerator was in use and therefore, replacement of refrigerator will not be a proper order and therefore, it was directed that old refrigerator should be taken back and in stead of that `15,500/- should be paid to the appellant as against the price of said refrigerator which was to receive by the appellant i.e. `17,837/- by way of installments. 

          What we find is that when on the date of delivery of goods, namely, refrigerator, it was found defective one and immediately as per assurance, said refrigerator should have been replaced.  However, for the best reasons known to the appellant, it was not replaced by the appellant.  Thus, there is deficiency in service since beginning.  In fact, to maintain the reputation in  the market the appellant ought to have replaced the refrigerator immediately.  Driven by such circumstances, the consumer was required to file a consumer complaint to seek redressal of his grievances in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.   In fact, supply of defective pieces and on admission of same of giving replacement of damaged pieces is unfair trade practice on the part of appellant.

          We find the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is rightly passed.  No interference is called.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                                :-ORDER-:

1.                 Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

2.                 No order as to costs.

3.                 Dictated on dais.

4.                 Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.