Tapan Kumar Chakraborty vs EXPO MACHINERY LTD.

THE complainant in C.D.F. Case No. 1216/92 is the Appellant in the instant appeal. He purchased on 31.3.1988 one Kelvinator Refrigerator of 165 litres through the authorized agent M/s. Kamala Agency of the respondent.

THE respondent is the manufacturer of the Freeze and it gave a guarantee of one year during purchase of the same through the agent. Within the guarantee period there were some troubles with the said Kelvinator-Refrigerator as such the complainant/Appellant lodged a complaint to the respondent. The representative of the respondent visited the house and examined the freeze and felt it necessary to take away the freeze at the service centre of the respondent for repairing purpose.

The freeze was returned to the complainant/appellant after changing the compressor. The complainant/appellant made various complaints for various troubles of the refrigerator by his letters dated 17.2.1989, 7.12.1990, 22.3.1991, 3.7.1991 and 16.1.1992. The representative of the respondent again visited the house of the complainant on 20.12.1990 and 1.4.1991 but the problem remained as before.

THEREFORE, the complainant/Appellant prayed before the C.D.F. for direction upon the O.P./respondent to supply a new refrigerator in lieu of the old and defective refrigerator. In the aforesaid context, the Ld.C.D.F. dismissed the complaint inter alia holding that the Complainant/Appellant failed to submit any report of an expert to show that the freeze was not given satisfactory service even after repair or it was completely defunct but it was observed that the complainant/appellant might write to the respondent company for a thorough checkup and necessary repair free of cost if he thought it necessary.

AGAINST the said order dt. 24.2.1993, the Complainant/Appellant has preferred this appeal inter alia on the ground that the Judgment and Order of dismissal of complaint is bad in law and that the Judgment is not maintainable either in fact or in law and the President and Ld. Member of the Forum failed to appreciate the complaint and the Complainant/Appellant''s case in its proper perspective and thus it caused a failure of justice and that the Ld. C.D.F. failed to appreciate the documents adduced by the Complainant/Appellant and came to a finding which was arbitrary and without application of judicial mind and that the C.D.F. should have considered that the removal of the original compressor and other accessories from the Refrigerator makes the respondent/O.P. liable for replacement of new Refrigerator and/or for return of the originnal compressor and accessories related to the Refrigerator in question and that the Calcutta District Forum dealt with it such issues which had no nexus to the complaint and in question and that the order passed by the Ld. District Forum is liable to be set aside and/or quashed. DECISION It appears from the record that the Kelvinator-Refrigerator was purchased on 31.3.1988 and the guarantee period was covered upon 31.3.1989 and thereafter the complainant/ appellant entered into an argument for service contract for 4 years for which he paid Rs. 450/- and during the service contract of the Refrigerator for the 4 years, the complainant/appellant alleged of various troubles with the Refrigerator and inspite of repeated representations the freeze was not put in order and the said allegations apparently seem to us to have no substance at all. It is also alleged by the complainant/ appellant that during repairing of the captioned Refrigerator compressor and some accessories replaced by the respondent company and for which the respondent company is liable to supply a new one in replacement of the old and defective refrigerator. The said contentions are also baseless because repairing of the refrigerator may require replacement of the parts but how does it give right to the complainant to have a replacement of a new one in place of the refrigerator is not understood by us.

IN our opinion, the complaint is a stale one because the purchaser of Refrigerator made on 31.3.1988 and it was only guaranteed for one year upto 31.3.1989 and thereafter service contract continued for 4 years i.e. upto 31.3.1992 but even the complainant during the course of 4 years of service contract did not lodge any complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum but subsequently he lodged a complaint only on 15.9.1992 after expiry of period for service contract. So the complaint is a vexatious one. Moreover, no cogent document as to the total disorder of the freeze produced before us to test the veracity of the complaint lodged by the complainant/appellant. So we also hold the same view to that of the Calcutta District Forum and affirm the judgment and order dated 24.2.1993 passed by the Ld. District Forum and dismiss the instant appeal. There will be no order as to the cost. Appeal dismissed.