Judgement dated 18.4.2017

                              The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one double door Godrej

                       refrigerator ( 3 star) having model no. Godrej RTUN 240P - 2.3 /24{O) LTRREF/CARBON LlF and

                       one Godrej washing machine from Op on 14.4.2014 by cash. Delivery was made on 19.4.2014

                       but the date of delivery was fixed on 17.4.2014. It is also case of the complainant that he has

                       purchased 3 star double door refrigerator but Op delivered 2 star double refrigerator. But the

                        said refrigerator was defective and the same was replaced on 24.4.2014 by Op.

                                  But the said replaced refrigerator was found also defective and the same was confirmed

                       by a technician of the company Mr.P.Porel . Mr.P.Porel submitted his report to that effect on

26.4.2014 . Thereafter, the complainant contacted with M/s Chandan Dutta , the Sales

representative of the Op over phone requesting him for replacement of the said refrigerator

but the said refrigerator was not changed by the op. Complainant served a notice to the oP on

7.5.14. But nothing was done. Hence, this case.

               The Op nO.1 Great Eastern Appliance Pvt. Ltd. filed Written version denying inter alia all

material allegations raised by the complainant . It is the case of the . Op nO.1 that

petitioner/complainant purchased the goods of reputed company of Godrej but after delivery

the alleged Godrej refrigerator was found defective by the company technician .After knowing

the defect the company replaced the alleged refrigerator on 24.4.2014 . The OP nO.1 is a mere

dealer and he is not liable for any manufacturing defect alleged by the complainant.

The Op no.2 Godrej Boyes Co. Ltd. filed written version denying inter alia all material

allegations raised by the complainant. But Op nO.2 admitted regarding the damaged condition

of refrigerator which was installed on 24.4.2014. It is also admitted that the technician of Op

company inspected the refrigerator and after inspection on 28.4.2014 the oP technician again

went to the complainant's residence to change the broken base but the complainant

intentionally and in a very arbitrarily refused to cooperate with the service man with a plea of

replacement of the refrigerator in question. Accordingly, it is stated by Op nO.2 that there is no

negligence on the part of OP.no.2.

                       Complainant files Xerox copy of documents by firisit namely - (1) Xerox copy of A.d.

addressed to Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. ltd. along with receipt. (2) lawyer's notice (3) Tax

invoice of Great Eastern dated 14.4.2014 (4) Money receipt of Great Eastern Appliances Pvt.

lTd. (5) Technician report of authorized service provider Mis Diya Refrigeration dated 26.4.14.

Complainant has filed Evidence in chief. Complainant has filed Written Notes of

Argument .Op has also filed Written Notes of Argument.

        POINT FOR DECISION

1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Op no.I and Op no.2. ?

2) Is the complainant entitled to get relief as per Consumer Protection Act 1

             DECISION WITH REASON:

From the Tax invoice filed by the complainant it appears that complainant purchased the

alleged refrigerator PEF-DD 201l TO 260 l as per price laid down in the tax invoice dated

14.4.2014. Delivery date4 17.4.2014. Another invoice shows payment to OP no.I Rs.29,900/- .

So it is admitted position, as per WV by Op no.I and Op nO.2 that the complainant purchased

the articles complained of from OP no.I manufactured by Op no.2. It is also admitted position

that for the first time Op no.I replaced the defective refrigerator. The replaced refrigerator

again was found defective on 2.4.2014 which was inspected on 26.4.2014. Op no.2 in his

written version admits the damaged condition of the replaced refrigerator as per inspection

report of Mr. Porel . The report of technician of the company shows itself that base backing to

be changed. So the material is on record that the replaced refrigerator was defective. Op no.2

also admitted in Written version that they sent technical person Mr. P.Porel for repairing but

complainant wanted replacement of refrigerator.

In the written notes argument the complainant has stated his whole case. In the written

notes of argument, Op no.I and op no.2 categorically admitted the claim of complainant. So,

from the documents, oral and documentary before us shows that alleged refrigerator which

was sold by Op no.I dealer and manufactured by Op nO.2 was defective and the op no.l has

taken adequate price from the complainant. This fact is not disputed by any side. Rather,

material on record insist us to believe the story of the complainant in all respect of purchasing

and submitting information to the Ops. When the op no.I and 2 admits the defects and the

articles have been examined by the mechanics of Op nO.2 it is not necessary to call for report

from any other expert.

So, after deep deliberation over the material in record, substance percolated in the

arguments of both sides Ld. Advocates and the reports of the mechanics of Op nO.2 it is air like

clear that the complainant was given defective articles.

The Op nO.2 sold or insisted to sell the defected product to the complainant which was

purchased by the complainant giving adequate consideration money. The act of the op nO.2

shows that Op no. 2 acted without due care and attention for the welfare of the customer and

to protect the interest of the customer. Accordingly, there is deficiency in service of Op nO.2

and the Op no.I partially. The Op no.I and 2 are jointly liable towards complainant. The

complainant case succeeds. The complainant is entitled to get relief as laid down in the C.P.Act.

Hence ordered

That the complaint case nO.l77 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest with

cost.

                     The Op no.I and 2 are jointly and severally liable replace the refrigerator of same model

(Model no. Godrej RT EON 240P-2.3/240 LTR REF-CARBON LEAF) to the complainant within 30

days from the date of this order.

The Op no.I and 2 are also liable to pay equally Rs.lO,OOO/- towards compensation to

the complainant/ petitioner for his mental agony and harassment within 30 days from the date

of this order.

                   The Op no.I and 2 are further liable to pay equally Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost

to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

If the Opposite party fails to comply the above order within the dated fixed, the

complainant would be at liberty to put the final order in execution.

              Let a copy of the order be handed over to the parties free of cost.

\