RAMSARAN CHAWLA vs Rakesh Kumar

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.6.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 8/1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant purchased an Alwyn fridge on 30.5.1991 from Ram Saran Chawla, its dealer. This fridge developed defects in a short time after its purchase and its compressor got burnt twice. THE guarantee of the compressor was of six years. Even after changing of compressor twice, the fridge did not work. THE complainant asked for a new fridge but the opposite party refused to do so. THE complainant, therefore, filed this complaint claiming replacement of fridge and for compensation of Rs. 4,450/-. The opposite party was issued notice and he admitted the allegations of the complainant. It was stated that the complainant should use the stabilizer so that the compressor may not burn. Before the learned District Forum, the complainant had filed an affidavit but no counter affidavit was filed by the opposite party. The opposite party also did not appear before the learned District Forum. The complainant informed the learned District Forum that the stabilizer was used by him but inspite of that the fridge is not working and there is major defects in the fridge.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed the opposite party to replace the fridge and to pay Rs. 500/- as damages.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. Learned Counsel for the opposite party/ respondent has been heard. No one was present on behalf of the appellant even though he was informed on S.P.S.

LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the fridge was purchased on 30.5.1991 but its working was not satisfactory. Within six months the compressor was changed twice and again in December, 1991 it became defective and hence the complaint was filed. He has also argued that before the learned District Forum the appellant appeared and moved an application in which it was alleged that the complainant did not use the stabilizer. No proper written statement was filed. According to learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, the stabilizer was used by the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant when they are supported by an affidavit. It has not been repudiated by any counter affidavit. Thus we find that the learned District Forum was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion and, therefore, there were manufacturing defects in the fridge. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of this appeal. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.