ELECTROLUX INDIA LIMITED Vs. P S VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in O.P. No. 278/2000 on the file of the District Forum, Coimbatore is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE case of the 1st respondent/complainant before the District Forum was as follows : The complainant had purchased a refrigerator on 28.12.1999 from the 2nd opposite party, the refrigerator having been manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The 3rd opposite party was both distributor and service render of the 1st opposite party. The refrigerator was found defective. The complainant had to send the refrigerator for repairs at least 4 times. The 3rd opposite party, after a stage, delivered another fridge representing it to be a new one. It also failed within 10 days. The fridge was again changed by the 2nd opposite party with another fridge again alleging it to be a new piece. The problem arose again on 5.5.2000. The complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to take back the fridge as he was unable to use it due to recurring defects and asked the 2nd opposite party to give him some other good brand. The 2nd opposite party refused to do so and advised the complainant to contact the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party ascertained the problem as gas leak and asked the complainant to meet 2nd opposite party again. When the complainant met the 2nd opposite party and asked for change of brand, the 2nd opposite party assured the complainant that no problem would arise thereafter and sent the complainant another piece of the same brand, representing it to be a new one. On 2.6.2000, the bulb inside the fridge did not burn and the cooling effect also was not there in the result, things kept inside the fridge, got spoiled. The complainant informed the 2nd opposite party on 3.6.2000. One person sent by the 3rd opposite party, attended the defect, found that it was thermostate problem and rectified it. Again on 10.7.2000, there was no cooling, there was failure of defroster and oil leakage from the compressor. When the complainant brought it to the notice of the 2nd opposite party, at his instance, the 3rd opposite party took the fridge and delivered to the complainant a fresh piece, alleging that it was a new one. Again within 14 days therefrom, there was problem. In such circumstances he filed the complaint.

(3.) THE counter of the 2nd opposite party was as follows : The complainant was not satisfied with the fridge and the fridge was replaced again and again. The defects in the fridge were rectified and the same was delivered on 8.5.2000. The complainant was satisfied about the working of the fridge. But after some time, the complainant requested for replacement and when the mechanic of the 3rd opposite party was deputed, the complainant refused permision to the mechanic to attend to the repairs. The 2nd opposite party was ready and willing to inspect the fridge, with the permission of the complainant and attend to the service of the fridge. The complainant exaggerated the small defects, normally noticed and corrected by service mechanic with mala fide intention. The fridges as sold were not junks. There was no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.