First Appeal No.2271 of 2004,Consumer Complaint No.252 of 2002

18th November, 2008

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. R. D. SULAKHE

JUDGMENT

-Shri. P. N. KASHALKAR, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member :- Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in Consumer Complaint No.252/2002 decided on 10-09-2004 whereby the Godrej Company has been jointly and severally directed to pay in all an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant towards compensation in lieu of replacement and compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered due to deficiency in service and also to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost, the org. O.P. Nos.1 & 2 have filed this appeal challenging the said award.

2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-

3. The complainant purchased a refrigerator from the Authorised Dealer of O.P. i.e. M/s. Raja Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd., Sakinaka, Andheri on 30-07-1999. It developed manufacturing defects and O.Ps. failed to rectify the same and put it in good working order. The complainant therefore filed consumer complaint seeking refund of price of refrigerator and damages totally claiming Rs.19,300/- from the O.Ps..

4. O.Ps. filed written statement. According to the O.Ps. customer was given services as and when complaints were received from the complainant. The service reports maintained by the respondents amply prove this fact. The complainant took all the advantages of free services rendered by the Company from the date of purchase of the refrigerator till he asked for refund of purchase, which the complainant has not entitled after having already received services free of charge. According to the O.P. demand for replacement or refund must be made in the first instance, which he did not do. Therefore, he is not entitled to claim refund after using the refrigerator for 4-1/2 years since the date of purchase. The O.P. further pleaded that the refrigerator is fully repaired and ready for delivery of which the intimation was given to the complainant, but he refused to collect the same from it. Accordingly to the O.P. refrigerator bought by the complainant was covered by warranty of 12 months, which expired long back. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay cost of replacement. The complainant opted for four years optional service contract and period of which expired after five years from the purchase date i.e. 30-07-2004. The O.P. pleaded that it rendered service under four years optional service contract only as and by way of customer satisfaction without admitting that the refrigerator sold to the customer had any manufacturing defects. The complainant was also offered an exchange of the refrigerator with brand new one of equal quality and equal version without charging extra consideration. But, the complainant is adamant and he is not ready to act upon their advice. Therefore, they pleaded that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. On hearing both the parties and on perusing the documents, the Learned District Consumer Forum held O.P./Company guilty of deficiency in service and directed to pay amount of Rs.15,000/- in all to the complainant towards compensation in lieu of replacement and also Rs.1,000/- as cost. As such, this appeal has been filed by Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd..

6. We heard submissions of Advocate Mr. R. D. Sulakhe for the appellant. None present for the respondent.

7. We are finding that the complainant purchased refrigerator on 30-07-1999 admittedly from the Authorised Dealer of Godrej & Boyce Company. After 2-1/2 years he filed consumer complaint claiming refund of price of refrigerator though warranty of one year expired on 30-07-2000 and four years optional service contract also expired on 30-07-2004 and complaint came to be filed on 20-06-2002. The Counsel for the appellant/Company brought to our notice the fact that on 02-08-1999, 19-01-2000, 16-02-2000, 11-07-2000, 24-10-2000, 21-10-2001, 08-04-2002 & 14-05-2002 the refrigerator was inspected by their technician and whatever defects pointed by the complainant/respondent herein were rectified. In all 8 times, technician of Godrej & Boyce Company had visited the house of the complainant and rectified the defects and every time the refrigerator was made operational to the satisfaction of the customer. The Counsel for the Company also submitted that by letter dated 14-05-2002 appellant informed the complainant that his refrigerator was repaired and kept ready for delivery, but the delivery was not accepted by the customer. Again the appellant Company requested the customer to take delivery as per letter dated 14-05-2002, but the complainant did not accept the delivery of the refrigerator from the Company and instead he filed consumer complaint on 20-06-2002. It means that the respondent/complainant only went on filing consumer complaint against Godrej & Boyce Company and to make capital out of it. The refrigerator was properly repaired and tried to be delivered at the house of the complainant as it clear from the exhibited letter at page-71 dated 14-05-2002. But, it is the complainant/respondent, who committed default. He was not ready to accept the duly repaired refrigerator from the Company and then he approached the Forum below and the Forum below by a stroke of pen, without bothering to see the services rendered by the appellant/Company passed the order and directed O.P. to refund Rs.15,000/- to the complainant though it was the complainant, who was adamant in not taking back duly repaired refrigerator from the appellant/Company. In the circumstances, we hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Godrej & Boyce Company. The Company did its best to render good amount of service to the complainant, kept ready the duly repaired refrigerator and sent letter to the complainant to take delivery of the refrigerator. But, for the reasons best known to the complainant/respondent herein, the delivery was not taken. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Forum below is improper, unjust and unwarranted in law. We are satisfied from the record that there was no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the appellant/Company. The fault lies with the respondent/org. complainant. He is not collecting duly repaired refrigerator from the appellant/Company and therefore, the order passed by the Forum below in the circumstances obtainable in this case will have to be quashed and set aside by allowing this appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum is quashed and set aside. The complaint stands dismissed.

2. Respondent/org. complainant is directed to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant/Company and bear his own cost.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Appeal allowed.