Delhi

East Delhi

CC/382/2015

ROHIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

GUNJAN REFRIGRATION - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 382/2015

 

	ROHIT GUPTA SON OF SHRI RAMESH GUPTA R/o Shree Geeta Satsang Bhawan, 85-86, Sarojini Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi	….Complainant
Versus
	M/s Gunjan Refrigeration Through its authorized Manager/ Representative 62, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi- 110092	……OP1
	M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Appliance Division) Through its authorized Director/Manager/ Representative Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli Mumbai-400079	……OP2

 

Date of Institution	:	27.05.2015
Judgment Reserved on	:	15.11.2022
Judgment Passed on	:	06.04.2023

 

               

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member) on leave
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the complaint with respect to deficiency in servicing the Refrigerator purchased by OP against AMC. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that complainant purchased a Refrigerator  which was having 10 years warranty on compressor/door but from the date of purchase the Refrigerator was defective and on 20.03.2013 the gas was again filled by the respondent and OP charged Rs.1325/- for the same but on the request of the OP complainant got AMC of the said Refrigerator and paid Rs.1854/- on 20.03.2013 which included full warranty on all parts and when the AMC was near completion, the Refrigerator again went faulty, respondent was called but he was not able to rectify the problem as the problem was with respect to door of the Refrigerator including its gas kit and the panel.  The respondent then informed the complainant that door/ panel/ gas kit of the Refrigerator is not available as the company has stopped manufacturing the said product and as such aggrieved by such reply of the OP he issued notice to the OP and then since it was not complied with the complainant filed the present complaint case inter alia saying that OP be directed to refund Rs.9500/- being the money paid for buying the Refrigerator, Rs.50000/- towards compensation and legal expenses. 
3. OP1 was served and was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 21.07.2016.  OP2 has filed its reply.  OP2 in its reply has taken the preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable interalia on the ground that complainant is guilty of concealing material facts, there is no deficiency on the part of OP2, there is no mechanical inspection done by the Complainant w.r.t. proving the manufacturing defect in the product if any, there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP2, the present complaint is malafide, misleading and frivolous, and the complaint involves  mixed question of law and facts and therefore cannot be decided by this Commission. 
4. On merit the purchase of Refrigerator is not denied but it is denied that there was a ten year warranty on the compressor and the door as alleged.  It is further stated that AMC was full warranty to all the parts of Refrigerator and it is mentioned that whatever has been mentioned on the AMC paper are covered but rubber and plastic parts are not covered under the AMC.  It is further submitted that the same model was an old model and the same has been discontinued by the company.  It is also denied that any person on the behalf of the OP ever assured any full warranty of the product and it is stated that complaint of the complainant be dismissed. 
5. Complainant has not filed any Rejoinder and has filed its evidence and has exhibited the following documents:

• The complaint along with accompanying affidavit is Ex. CW 1/1.
• The Application form No.1613680 Dated 20/03/2013 is Ex. CW 1/2.
• The Gunjan refrigeration receipt dated 20/03/2013 a are Ex. CW 1/3 (colly).
• The Photograph of refrigerator showing 10 yrs warranty is Ex. CW 1/4.

6. The OP2 has filed its evidence and has exhibited no documents. 
7. The commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.  The complainant in the entire complaint has not mentioned as to when he purchased the Refrigerator, Even if the Refrigerator would be having warranty for the 10 years, it has to be informed by the complainant as to when he purchased the Refrigerator so that the counting of 10 years can be calculated.  The complaint rather starts from the facts that the complainant has purchased the Refrigerator  and gas was re-filled in the year 2013 i.e. on 20.03.2013 again and then on the saying of OP he took extended warranty for the 2 years.  There is no document filed by the complainant as to what and what the warranty would include i.e. whether it would include the change of door or whether it would include the gas kit and panel, is not specific in the warranty document filed by the complainant.  , Further, there is no report on the Commission’s file as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator or not.  Therefore, as far as the claim against OP2 is concerned the complainant has not been able to prove any manufacturing defect nor any opinion of the expert has been taken.  Further, the warranty which has been taken on 20.05.2013 is not taken from OP2 rather it is taken only from OP1.  Therefore, the complaint case of the complainant as far as OP2 is concerned is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP2 as far as extended warranty is concerned.  Therefore, complaint of the complainant against OP2 is Dismissed.  As far as OP1 is concerned, OP1 has taken the amount of Rs.1854/- for a warranty for a period of 2 years but there is no terms and conditions mentioned as to what and what would be covered in the AMC.  Complainant has not filed any document to show that the warranty would include the door/ gas kit or panel.  Once the warranty card is not specific the natural rule would apply i.e. if a person has assured for certain services then those services are to be given against the warranty.  However, again the issue would come as to what services were to be granted.  The warranty is therefore too vague to be considered and in these circumstances the only relief which the complainant can get is for refund of the amount paid for AMC.   
8. Accordingly, OP2 is directed to return Rs.1854/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint along with compensation of Rs.1000/-. 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 06.04.2023.