GODREJ G.E. APPLIANCES LTD. vs M.M.SHRIVASTAVA

THIS appeal has arisen from order dated 3.4.1995 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur (hereafter District Forum, Jabalpur) in Complaint Case No. 332/94. District Forum, in their order, directed the appellant to take the refrigerator back and pay Rs. 6,964/- with 18% interest from 7.10.1987 till the date of payment, and also pay Rs. 300/- as proceedings cost.

THE facts of the case giving rise to this appeal stated briefly are that respondent had purchased a Godrej refrigerator from the appellant on 7.10.1987 with a warranty of one year and thereafter for a service contract of 4 years upto 7.10.1992. Respondent in his first complaint filed in District Forum on 11.1.1994 prayed for replacement of refrigerator or for refund of price with interest thereon and the same was registered as Case No. 25/94. This case was closed by District Forum, Jabalpur vide order dated 30.7.1994, stating that the opposite party has agreed to replace the compressor free of cost, and complainant is fully satisfied and hence the case is closed. THEreafter on 7.10.1994, respondent filed another petition alongwith copies of old record of his previous complaint and prayed for the same reliefs as were mentioned in his earlier complaint. After registration of this complaint, despite objection raised by appellant, District Forum passed the impugned order against which this instant appeal has been filed. In the appeal memo, the appellant has challenged the order of District Forum on following main grounds, amongst several others narrated in para 5 of his appeal: (a) Order under appeal was wrong because the District Forum having closed the case earlier had no jurisdiction to revive the old complaint and pass the impugned order. (b) Evidence on record has not been properly appreciated leading to miscarriage of justice. (c) Warranty period had ended in 1988 and service contract ended in 1992 and therefore, there was no case for deficiency in service in 1994. (d) Findings about manufacturing defect is not based on any evidence and hence baseless; and (e) The complaint was barred by limitation in 1994 almost six and half years after purchase.

Having heard the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal must be allowed. In our opinion the District Forum should have dismissed the complaint initially on grounds of limitation. After all the warranty period ended in 1988 and service contract ended in 1992 and therefore, in 1994 the complainant (respondent) was not the hirer of the services of the appellant and hence there was no case of deficiency in service. Even then, the District Forum brought about a compromise and closed the case, when appellant agreed to replace compressor free of cost. Having issued this order, it was totally wrong on the part of District Forum to revive the complaint again and pass the impugned order. Another important point was that it was not established at any stage that mere was manufacturing defect and even after all the contracts had ended appellant replaced the compressor free of cost. We are inclined to agree with the appellant that there has been blatant miscarriage of justice in this case and therefore, impugned order of the District is not legally sustainable and deserves to be quashed.

WE had on an earlier occasion, in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kusum Baghel (Appeal No. 196/94), taken a similar view and had set aside an order of District Forum ordering the replacement of refrigerator. In the context of discussion in preceding paragraphs the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 3.4.1995 of District Forum Jabalpur is hereby set aside. We direct the respondent to pay Rs. 500/- as costs of proceedings to the appellant and bear his own costs. Appeal allowed. _________________