ELECTROLUX VOLTAS LTD Vs. R C MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Deep Freezer was purchased by the respondent for Rs.8,950/ - on 26.8.1998 from M/s. Hindustan Refrigeration Stores, Daryaganj. New Delhi. Since the Deep Freezer was not functioning properly, on 7.10.1998 the compressor was found defective and accordingly changed but in spite of this the defect continued resulting in change of thermostat on 11.11.1998 and the same machine was again replaced and adjusted but there was no improvement in the functioning of the freezer. Vide order dated 5.10.2000 the appellant as well as respondent No.2 the dealer and M/s. Voltas Limited, the manufactuer were held jointly and severally liable and directed to supply a new deep freezer of same quality and type or refund the amount paid by the respondent along with interest of 18% p. a.

(2.) THE perusal of the impugned order shows that none of the O. Ps. including the appellant appeared before the District Forum despite service of the notice of the complaint. According to the appellant it was not served with any notice nor has he any concern with it as it only manufactures Kelvinator Refrigerators and not Voltas Refrigerators and as such no liability can be fastened unto it. The perusal of the record also shows that the respondent had purchased the deep freezer from respondent No.2 M/s. Hindustan Refrigeration Stores, Daryaganj which was manufactured by respondent No.3 Voltas Limited. Record further shows that the operations of respondent No.3 -Voltas Limited were taken over by the appellant on 15.2.1999 whereas the deep freezer in question was purchased on 26.8.1998.

(3.) IT appears that at the time of filing the complaint appellants were n control of the operations of Voltas Limited. Whenever any company takes over along with operations of another company it takes over its assets and liabilities and as such the appellant carried the liability of Voltas Limited and since the complaint was filed in the year 1999 i. e. , subsequent to the date of taking over the operations of Voltas Limited by the appellant the liability of the appellant was rightly held as joint and several.