Date :17.02.2016

DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER 

            Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 19.08.2014 in CC No. 129/2014 by the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas (in short, District Forum), the OP No. 1 thereof has preferred this appeal. By the impugned order Ld. District Forum has allowed the case.

            Case of the Complainant is that he purchased a new refrigerator being RD-EDGE PRO – 210 CT, 210 Ltrs. at a cost of Rs.17, 600/- against exchange of the price of the old refrigerator from the OP No. 2, of which the OP No. 1 is the manufacturer and OP No. 3 is the dispatching warehouse, and the same has been delivered on 19.02.2014. But, in the evening of that day, water was leaking from inside and defrost button  not working, door was not functioning due to ineffectiveness of the lock, tray automatically came out with the opening of the door, and moreover, single door instead of double door was provided. There has been no positive response for service of the defective refrigerator by the OPs in spite of several intimations. For the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the case.

            On the other hand, the case of the OP No. 1 is that the floor of the Complainant is not plain and the surface of the floor is rough. The mechanic etc. went several times to rectify the defect or error and suggested to the Complainant to shift the refrigerator to another place which is plain. In case, any goods are found defective, they try to solve the problem. They are ready and willing to solve if any defect is found. 

            It is to be considered if the impugned order requires any interference in appeal as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

            Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the refrigerator was placed in an uneven place, but the Complainant for its ego did not shift it from that place and filed the case.  There is no manufacturing defect of the Refrigerator. The Ld. District Forum has awarded a huge award in favour of the Complainant without justification.

            Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that there has been unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellant. In the name of a new fridge, an old fridge has been delivered on 19.02.2014 and on the same day, defects had surfaced. Further, in place of a double door fridge, a single door fridge has been provided. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Commission as reported in 2013 (1) CPR 15 (Mah.).

            It is found apparently clear that the refrigerator of the make of the OP No. 1 was giving troubles since after the date of purchase. It has been admitted by the OP No. 1 that the refrigerator was not functioning properly on the stated ground of uneven surface of the floor of the house of the Complainant. This is not a valid excuse. Accordingly, the findings the Ld. District Forum in the matter of defect of goods is a rightful one, and also the order to refund Rs.17,600/-. But, the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.20,000/-  along with interest are reduced and modified as under. Further, the penalty amount of Rs.200/- per diem is struck off. The amount of litigation cost is reduced to Rs.5, 000/-, and the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is also struck off and as interest @ 10% p.a. has been imposed on the principal amount of Rs. 17,600/-. Other parts of the ordering portion will remain as it is. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part.  The impugned order is modified to the extent as above.