QUILON RADIO SERVICE vs P.T.Mathew

THESE appeals are directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kottayam in O.P. 701/92.

THE second opposite party is the appellant in Appeal No. 585/92 and the 3rd opposite party is the appellant in Appeal No. 586/92. As common questions arise in these appeals, we dispose of the appeals by a common order. The respondent in these appeals is the complainant. He purchased a Kelvinator Fridge on 31/8/1990 from the 1st opposite party for Rs. 7635.00. After 3 months the Fridge went out of order and the complainant took the Fridge to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party entrusted the Fridge to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party kept the Fridge for about 3 months and returned it stating that it was repaired. The complainant took the Fridge at home believing the representation, but it was found that the Fridge was not cooling. The complainant again took the Fridge to the 2nd opposite party. After two months it was returned to the complainant after repairs. The Fridge worked for 4 months making big noise. This was reported to the 1st opposite party. He took the Fridge and again entrusted to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party kept the Fridge with them for 4 months and it was returned representing that it was repaired. For another two months the Fridge worked but with big noise and then it went out of order completely. The Fridge was in a non-repairable condition. It is alleged by the complainant that he could use the Fridge only for 9 months after purchase and for the rest of the period the Fridge was with the 2nd opposite party. The complainant claimed replacement of the Fridge with a new one free of cost or refund of the price paid with 18% interest and payment of Rs. 2000.00 towards loss and mental agony from the opposite parties.

The 1st and 2nd opposite parties did not file any version. The 3rd opposite party filed version stating that they came to know about the complaint only on receiving the notice from the Forum and if they were made aware of it they would have taken immediate steps to redress the grievance of the complainant. It was also averred that the entire dealings took place between the 1st opposite party, their dealer and the second opposite party, their authorised service distributor. He also expressed his willingness to rectify any defect and make the Fridge as good as brand new and also to extend the warranty by an additional year under the sealed in system.

THE District Forum found that the Fridge had manufacturing defects and in the circumstances passed an order directing the 3rd opposite party to replace the Fridge with a new one free of cost within one month. No other relief was granted. No relief was granted against the 2nd opposite party. He also did not file any version. Under the circumstances we find difficult to understand how he could maintain the appeal against the order.

NOR do we find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. There is no denial of the averments contained in the complaint. The only defence taken by the 3rd opposite party was the matter ought to have been brought to his notice earlier. He also expressed his willingness to repair the Fridge free of cost and also extend the warranty period. It has been proved from the facts narrated that the Fridge cannot be repaired again. It was going out of order all the time and several times the complainant had to approach the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party to get it repaired and after taking all the trouble the Fridge continued in a non-functional condition. In the circumstances we have no doubt that only order that can be passed is the replacement of the Fridge by a new one. It is contended in the appeal that sufficient opportunities were not given to the 3rd opposite party to contest the matter and there is violation of principles of justice. Notice was issued by the District Forum to the 3rd opposite party and 3rd opposite party filed version stating that had the 3rd opposite party been approached earlier and appraised of the defects of the Fridge, the grievance of the complainant could have been redressed earlier. The defects mentioned in the complaint were not denied in the version. It is also not seen that the 3rd opposite party wanted to adduce any evidence and made request for the purpose and his request was declined. In the circumstances there is no substance in that contention. The appeals are devoid of any merit and they are accordingly dismissed. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Appeal dismissed.