MAHENDRA KUMAR ARORA vs ELECTRO REFRIGERATION ENGINEERS

HEARD. The appellant had purchased a Kelvinator fridge for Rs. 8,100 from the respondent on 1.6.1993. According to the appellant the said fridge did not give satisfactory services to him whereupon he contacted the respondent for change of the compressor. The respondent duly replaced the compressor of the fridge on 19.5.1994. But still the grievance of the appellant with regard to the alleged defect in the cooling system of the fridge continued and he, therefore, again contacted the respondent on 11.6.1994. Since the respondent did not remove the defect in the fridge, the appellant filed his complaint before the D.F. The D.F. dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant had given a warranty for one year only which had expired on 31.5.1993 and, therefore, it was not liable to repair the fridge any more. It was also pointed out by the D.F. that for services during the next 6 years, there was a contract of the purchasers of the fridge with Expo Machinery Ltd., New Delhi which was not made a party to the present complaint and, therefore, no relief could be awarded to the appellant.

IT was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since, undisputedly, the respondent had sold the goods to the appellants with a warranty for 7 years including one year''s warranty from self and 6 years'' warranty from M/s. Expo Machinery Ltd. New Delhi, and there was some defects in the fridge with regard to its cooling system, the respondent should have removed such defects. The argument advanced appeals to our reasons. The respondent had no doubt undertaken to repair the refrigerator for any defect therein during a period of one year from the date of its purchase but the warranty issued referred to the services to be rendered to the purchaser of the fridge by M/s. Expo Machinery Ltd., New Delhi. There appears to be a tie-up arrangement between the respondent on the one hand and M/s. Expo Machinery Ltd., New Delhi for rendering services to the purchasers of the fridge from the respondent, for the next 6 years after the expiry of the period of one year. The respondent was, therefore, liable to render such services to the appellant during the aforesaid period.

Since the only defect in the fridge was with respect to cooling system and the appellant has been using such fridge for the last 10 to 12 years we are of the opinion that a compensation of Rs. 1,000 only by the respondent to the appellant should satisfy the appellant with regard to his grievance in the present matter. We order accordingly.

IN the result, the impugned order shall stand modified in the manner stated above. The respondent shall pay Rs. 1,000 to the appellant within a period of one month from today failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment. Cost on parties. Appeal allowed.