Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
The case record is received being transferred from the Hon’ble 2nd Bench, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Respondent No.1 are present.
The respondent No.1 has already filed BNA. Appellant also filed BNA this day. Copy served. None appears for the Respondent No.2.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with Order dt. 24.08.17 passed by DCDRC, Hooghly in CC/182/2015 allowing the said case in contest with a direction upon the OP No.1 (the present Appellant) to replace the refrigerator, in question, with a new one and in default, direction was given to the OP No.1 for refunding Rs.14,800/- along with 18% interest per annum since 25.08.2014 till full payment, the Appellant/Oposite Party preferred this appeal.
Heard the submission of the both sides.
The fact of the complaint case was in short like that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 purchased one Samsung Double Door Refrigerator Model No. RT 252 GAACSE on 16.08.2012 from OP No.1 through Financer Bajaj Ltd. After perusing the guarantee card issued by OP No.1, the Complainant found that the refrigerator had 12 months comprehensive period and 60 months guarantee for the compressor.
On 25.08.2014 the cooling sense system of the refrigerator stopped working and the Complainant made complaint with the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 told the Complainant to make contact with the OP no.2/service centre. Accordingly, the Complainant contacted with OP No. 2 on 02.09.2014 after two years of using the refrigerator. On 02.09.2014 the OP no. 2 sent their agent, who came to the complainant’s house and informed that the compressor of the said refrigerator was defective and asked the complainant to arrange for making payment of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter OP no. 2 sent a bill of Rs.1656/- regarding the cost for repairing the compressor on 29.01.2015 and the defective compressor was replaced by a new one. But on the next date, the new compressor stopped functioning. So, the Complainant complained verbally to OP No.1, but the OP No.1 did not take any responsibility and he asked the Complainant to go to OP No. 2 for proper remedy. In spite of repeated demands by the Complainant since 04.03.15, the OP 2 did not return the said refrigerator, although they received the same for repairing. So, the Complainant/Respondent filed this case.
The OP No.2 did not contest the case.
The OP No. 1 contested the case by filing a Written Version. The purchase of aforesaid refrigerator in question from the OP No.1 has not been disputed. According to him, there is no deficiency in service. The defence case is that, although the OP No.1 sold the item to the Complainant, but responsibility of the service as per warrantee card lies with the OP no.2. It is clear from the clause 2 of the warrantee card that the repairs under warrantee shall be carried out by the company authorised personnel only. So, the responsibility lies with the OP No.2 according to the OP No.1.
The parties of both sides adduced evidence before the Ld. Forum below. The Ld. Forum below framed three points for consideration:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?
Considering the evidence in record the Ld. Forum below decided the case in favour of the complainant answering the points in affirmative.
Now the question is that whether the impugned judgement suffers from any illegality.
The Ld. Advocate for the respondent No. 1 referred to a decision of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi dt. 22.03.2007 in the case of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, petitioner vs. Avula Venkata Reddy in Revision Petition No.3282 of 2003. In the aforesaid judgement it was held “In our view, no doubt, the manufacturer would have been a proper party but at the same time the Petitioner is a person who has supplied and sold the seeds to the Complainant, therefore, complaint was maintainable against the Petitioner. If Petitioner has any grievance, it is open to the Petitioner to recover the amount ordered from the manufacturer by filing appropriate proceedings, but is cannot be said that the Petitioner, a dealer, who has sold the deeds, is not liable.” He also referred to another decision of this State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in the case of Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. vs. Bithika Bala dated 08.03.2018, wherein it was observed, “Frankly speaking, a dealer/retailer cannot shrug off it responsibility if the subject product runs defective.”
The Appellant also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dt. 20.08.1999 in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. and another vs. N. Siva Kumar and another reported in (2000)10 SCC 654, wherein it has been observed in point 5, “An apprehension has been expressed by the dealer that the burden of this may ultimately fall upon the dealer. We make it clear that for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable. The liability must be borne by the manufacturer.”
So, considering the factual scenario of the case along with the evidence on record and the position of law cited above, we are of the view, the impugned Order requires some modifications.
Accordingly, the Appeal being No.A/1004/2017 is allowed on contest against the Respondent No.1 and ex parte against the respondent No. 2.
The OP nos.1 and 2 are directed, jointly and severally, to replace the refrigerator in question with a new one within 45 days, in default, they are directed to refund Rs.14800/- along with an interest @9% per annum from 25.08.2014. A compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- are to be paid by the Respondent No.2 within 45 days.
The impugned order in CC/182/2015 is modified accordingly.
Let a copy of the order be sent to the DCDRC, Hooghly.
The Joint Registrar of this Commission is directed to do the needful in this regard.
