ALLWYN ELECTROLUX vs Navin Kumar

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is by M/s. Allwyn Electrolux, Chandigarh, challenging order of the District Forum, Ferozepur dated 24.2.2000, whereby the complaint filed by Navin Kumar son of Om Parkash was allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with new one of same make and also to pay Rs. 1,500/- as compensation for harassment plus Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.

ACCORDING to the averments made in the complaint, the complainant had purchased one refrigerator brand Kelvinator of 165 litres capacity, Compressor No. 185452A98 from opposite party No. 1, the dealer of products of opposite party No. 2 on 20.5.1998 for Rs. 7,700/-. It carried a warranty for a period of one year with a provision that the consumer could enter into contract with the opposite parties for 4 years service contract and this contract was to commence after the expiry of warranty period. The price charged by the opposite party No. 1 included the cost of optional service contract. The brand Kelvinator was acquired by the Electrolux Company, which is marketing the products under the name of Allwyn Electrolux Limited. As narrated the refrigerator started giving trouble immediately after its purchase. The compressor was making noise and the matter was reported to the opposite party No. 1. The cooling effect was negligible. The opposite parties agreed to replace the compressor after a period of 6/7 months at a cost of Rs. 550/-. The compressor was replaced on 23.11.1999. Even after the replacement of compressor the trouble did not subside, rather was double the noise prior to the replacement of the compressor. The defect occurred during the warranty period. The opposite party did not give proper service. Hence the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The opposite parties filed written version stating therein that the complaint was baseless and a flagrant abuse of process of law. The opposite parties took the stand that the grievance of the complainant has been redressed by changing the compressor of the alleged refrigerator with another one. It was also stated that the opposite party No. 2 is an organisation of repute and dealing in manufacturing and trading of qualitative consumer durable items such as fridge, washing machine, etc. The produces were manufactured in latest and up-to-date plants, under stringent quality control and there could not be any manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator as the matter was never reported to the opposite parties. The opposite parties were duty bound to effect repairs upon the produces sold by them during the warranty period.

The District Forum after considering the merits of the case passed the impugned order.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the District Forum erred in holding that there was 4 years'' optional contract opted by the respondent/complainant. In fact there was no four years'' optional contract and the complainant misled the learned Trial Court. The District Forum failed to appreciate that the compressor was replaced on 23.12.1999 after the expiry of warranty period without charging price of the compressor. The complainant had paid Rs. 350/- on account of gas and Rs. 200/- on account of octroi charges claimed by the opposite party No. 1. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties/appellants argued that the fridge is still in physical possession and constant use of the respondent/complainant and the alleged problem of noise in the compressor is unjustified. We have considered this contention. The District Forum elaborately discussed this issue in its order and it was decided in favour of the complainant with detailed reasons, and we are fully convinced with those reasons. It is not disputed that there was a defect in the refrigerator and the compressor was replaced to remove the defect. It is also not disputed that the appellant Company is a manufacturer of the product. The District Forum in its order has concluded as under: "The compressor which was fitted in the refrigerator which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1, was replaced by the opposite party on 23.12.1999 after the expiry of warranty period of one year without charging price of the compressor from the complainant which clearly shows that the complainant had opted 4 years service contract at the time of purchase of the said refrigerator from the opposite party No. 1. As such the refrigerator is under the opted warranty period, and the complainant is entitled for the replacement of the refrigerator. Supplying the defective refrigerator to the complainant and thereafter not replacing the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has suffered a lot of inconvenience and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties due to supply of defective refrigerator, as such the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant."

The learned Counsel for the appellants has failed to rebut the above conclusion of the District Forum with cogent and convincing reasons coupled with evidence. On 23.12.1999 the compressor which was fitted in the refrigerator as stated, was replaced without charging price after warranty period. We do not accept this version and conclude that the warranty period was operative at that time and the change of compressor was as per stipulation in the warranty.

IN view of the circumstances and the reasons briefly discussed in the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum, while allowing the complaint of the complainant. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order of the District Forum is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.