Godrej Appliances Limited vs AVTAR SINGH

THE learned Counsel for the appellants -Godrej Appliances Ltd. and M/s. Pinky Electronics submitted that the appellants are aggrieved by the part of the impugned judgment and order dated 18.5.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 710 of 2004 and is challenging only that part of the order vide which a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - has been awarded as compensation for harassment and mental agony due to the supply of defective goods, which in the instant case is a refrigerator make Godrej, Model GF -34, Sr. No. 00368.

THE finding of the District Forum regarding the refrigerator being defective requiring repairs and for payment of any difference in the price and the same shall be shared equally in ratio of 50:50 has been challenged before us. In other words, the appellants have admitted their liability regarding the aforesaid refrigerator being defective and not according to the specifications disclosed at the time of sale of the refrigerator. The District Forum held that the complainant suffered physically as well as mentally by approaching the appellants for removal of the defects and he has been compensated by a sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as C.P. Act) empowers the District Forum to order for payment of such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. The proviso further requires that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit. Needless to say that the C.P. Act has been enacted with predominant objective for providing better protection to the interest of the consumer and for that purpose, the provisions were made for establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the consumer and consumer disputes and, therefore, the C.P. Act is to be interpreted in favour of the consumer in case two interpretations are possible from any set of facts and circumstances.

THE learned Counsel for the appellants made strenuous efforts to contend that on the date of arguments before the District Forum, the matter was settled between the parties and the Zimini order makes some reference regarding it. It is, however, to be taken note of that no written agreement or compromise was filed by the parties, which contained signatures of the parties/their authorised agent/Counsel and the terms and conditions of the compromise were not specified and as a matter of fact, the same has been pushed through the Court of District Forum. We do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the matter had in fact had reached the stage of settlement and the same ought to have been decided keeping into consideration the terms of the compromise.

WE are of the considered opinion that the District Forum was justified in awarding compensation for physical harassment and mental agony due to the supply of defective refrigerator. There is no error pointed out in the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.