CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

Blue Star Ltd. vs S. Jayaprakash

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 9 June 1994 · Citation: 1994 3 CPJ 370

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K.Shamsuddin , C.G.Sethu Lakshmi , K.Balakrishnan Nair J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 351 words
1.

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Palakkad. The opposite party is the appellant.

2.

THE complainant purchased a refrigerator from the opposite party No. 1 who is the dealer of opposite party No. 2 on 13-11-1990. Within two months from the date of purchase it was noticed that the paint at the bottom of the fridge fade out and worn out. THE complainant then approached the 1st opposite party and requested the opposite parties for replacement of fridge. Notwithstanding the request no action was taken. THEreupon a registered letter was sent to the 1st opposite party. This also yielded no result. It is in those circumstances the complaint was filed seeking replacement of fridge and compensation. The opposite parties denied charges. The 2nd opposite party however filed an undertaking either to repair or replace fridge during warranty period.

The District Forum found the moisture seal crisper tray had corroded and worn out just two months after the purchase of fridge. In the circumstances it came to the conclusion that the replacement of the fridge was necessary. Accordingly, District Forum passed an order for replacement of fridge. It was also ordered that the period of warranty will commence from the date of replacement.

3.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the second opposite party has come up in appeal. It was noticed that moisture seal crisper tray had corroded and worn out within two months after the purchased. 2nd opposite party undertook either to repair or replace the fridge. In the circumstances of the case the District Forum came to the conclusion that replacement of fridge is necessary. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the order directing to issue warranty from the date of replacement cannot be justified. We are unable to uphold this contention also. The old fridge was used only for 3 months when the defects were noticed. In the circumstances the direction regarding warranty also is reasonable. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.