ALLWYN ELECTROLUX Vs. NAVIN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is by M/s. Allwyn Electrolux, Chandigarh, challenging order of the District Forum, Ferozepur dated 24.2.2000, whereby the complaint filed by Navin Kumar son of Om Parkash was allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with new one of same make and also to pay Rs.1,500/- as compensation for harassment plus Rs.500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.

(2.) According to the averments made in the complaint, the complainant had purchased one refrigerator brand Kelvinator of 165 litres capacity, Compressor No.185452a98 from opposite party No.1, the dealer of products of opposite party No.2 on 20.5.1998 for Rs.7,700/-. It carried a warranty for a period of one year with a provision that the consumer could enter into contract with the opposite parties for 4 years service contract and this contract was to commence after the expiry of warranty period. The price charged by the opposite party No.1 included the cost of optional service contract. The brand Kelvinator was acquired by the Electrolux Company, which is marketing the products under the name of Allwyn Electrolux Limited. As narrated the refrigerator started giving trouble immediately after its purchase. The compressor was making noise and the matter was reported to the opposite party No.1. The cooling effect was negligible. The opposite parties agreed to replace the compressor after a period of 6/7 months at a cost of Rs.550/-. The compressor was replaced on 23.11.1999. Even after the replacement of compressor the trouble did not subside, rather was double the noise prior to the replacement of the compressor. The defect occurred during the warranty period. The opposite party did not give proper service. Hence the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) The opposite parties filed written version stating therein that the complaint was baseless and a flagrant abuse of process of law. The opposite parties took the stand that the grievance of the complainant has been redressed by changing the compressor of the alleged refrigerator with another one. It was also stated that the opposite party No.2 is an organisation of repute and dealing in manufacturing and trading of qualitative consumer durable items such as fridge, washing machine, etc. The produces were manufactured in latest and up-to-date plants, under stringent quality control and there could not be any manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator as the matter was never reported to the opposite parties. The opposite parties were duty bound to effect repairs upon the produces sold by them during the warranty period.