SHANTA BHATIA vs INDIAN STORES

-THIS is a complainant''s appeal against the order dated 25.9.2003 whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator from opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 is the Service Executive and opposite party No. 3 is the manufacturer. THE purchase was made on 25.2.1992 for a sum of Rs. 13,600/- (Rupees thirteen thousand six hundred). It is alleged in the complaint that warranty was given for the refrigerator. THE period of warranty has not been given in the complaint but it is said to be one year. It is alleged that after one month of the purchase itself, there was defect in the refrigerator. Defrost system became ineffective. THE complainant informed this fact to the opposite party No. 1 who asked that instead of defrosting there should be manual defrosting because repair can be done only on the approval of opposite party No. 2. Due to this defect in defrosting system, there were cracks in the double rack of the refrigerator. It was complained to the opposite party No. 1. It did not hear. It is alleged in paras 3 and 4 of the complaint that when the cracks developed or when they widened, it is said that again the complainant made complaints but it was not heard. She had to wait for one year but her grievances were not redressed. THEn the complainant wrote a letter on 21.6.1995 for her complaint''s redressal. The opposite party has denied the allegations of the complaint and contested the matter. The learned Forum after evidence of the parties held that all the defects have come out after the warranty period while the warranty was for 1 year only. There was no complaint in the warranty period. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The husband of the complainant is a lawyer as given in the heading of the complaint but still everything was verbal, which cannot be presumed. It is said that from 1992 to 1995 everything was going verbal which is beyond imagination. It is for the first time that on 21.6.1995, the defects were pointed out in writing through a letter. The opposite party has sent experts who have found certain defects, which cannot be said to be manufacturing defects. A mechanic was also sent on 15.11.1995 after the letter of the complainant. Had earlier the defects been pointed out, definitely the opposite party should have removed the defects. In grounds of appeal, it is alleged that there is no limitation for manufacturing defects. We agree but the manufacturing defect could not be proved at all.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant referred the ruling reported in I (2003) CPJ 190 (NC), Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. C.D. Roy. This ruling shall not apply to the facts of the present case because in that particular ruling manufacturing defects were found. THE complainant in this case could not prove any manufacturing defect. The net result is that we do not find any force in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed