P K NANDA Vs. GEM INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by Shri P. K. Nanda, R/o B-115 G. T. Kamal Road, Delhi against the impugned order dated 13.9.89 passed by the learned District Forum, Delhi. The appellant has agitated that he had purchased a Gem refrigerator from M/s. Gem India of 2/90 Connaught Circus, New Delhi through their agent M/s. Sindhu Traders, 8-E Kamla Nagar, Delhi on 31.5.84. That he had also purchased a Gem Voltage Stabilizer alongwith the Gem refrigerator which was sold to him as a tag item with the assurance of free service for both the items during the guarantee period of 5 years up to 31.5.89. He has further alleged that the so called service was not at all free service as they had charged Rs.450/- in the bill as anticipated service. The appellant has further stated that while passing the impugned order dated 13.9.89, the learned District Forum has allowed him a refund of Rs.40/- out of the total claim of Rs.120/- which had been wrongly charged by the respondents and which charges were unjustified and illegal. He also stated that because of the refusal of the dealer M/s. Sindhu Traders, respondent No.2 for making repairs of the voltage stabilizer, the appellant had to spend Rs.50/-. The appellant has now sought relief on the following two counts : (i) Refund of Rs.80/- disallowed by the learned District Forum while passing the impugned orders dated 13.9.89. (ii) A further payment of Rs.50/- as repaid charges for the voltage stabilizer.

(2.) The respondents in their reply contended that the appellant had admitted before the District Forum that the voltage stabilizer was not a part of the refrigerator and since the voltage stabilizer was purchased by the appellant from respondent No.2, respondent No.1 could not be held responsible in respect of sale of the said stabilizer or in respect of the guarantee for any free service for the same. The respondents further stated that in the copy of the bill submitted by the appellant before the District Forum, the narration with regards to the voltage stabilizer reads : "one transformer 1.5 KVA Rs.314/-" and that the same did not prove in itself that the voltage stabilizer was of Gem brand. The respondents further contended that the appellant had purchased the refrigerator through respondent No.2 under a warranty against the manufacturing defect for the first year of purchase and a four years service contract for the refrigerator sealed in system, and that respondent No.1 had charged Rs.120/- in terms of Clause 7 of the aforesaid four years service contract for the repair of the appellant's refrigerator. It was claimed by the respondents that the place of appellant at the time of his complaint for repair was at a distance of about 25 K. M. from the workshop of the answering respondent and that their mechanic had visited his place twice, 1st time to ascertain the defects in the machine and secondly to rectify the same and that the respondent No.1 had charged the transportation and incidental expenses of Rs.120/- only which was a reasonable amount

(3.) We have gone through the impugned order, records and also heard the parties at length. It is an admitted fact on record that the respondents had charged Rs.450/- for the anticipated repairs during the guarantee period, which are indicated as service charges on bill No.454 dated 31.5.84 which was issued by M/s. Sindhu Traders, respondent No.2. The respondents in their reply and during the course of arguments had pleaded that they did charge Rs.120/- but the same was on account of transportation and incidental expenses. When at the time of purchase of refrigerator, a sum of Rs.450/- had been charged as service charges over and above the cost of the refrigerator including sales tax, we do not find any justification in the plea of the respondents having charged Rs.120/- as transportation and incidental expenses. The contention of the appellant that during the guarantee period he was entitled to free service regarding any defect in the machine is, therefore, upheld. With regard to the 2nd relied for the amount of Rs.50/-, purportedly spent by the appellant for the repair of the voltage stabilizer, the appellant has not been able to prove that the transformer was part and parcel of the refrigerator either the same was a Gem product belonging to the respondent company No.1. The careful scrutiny of the record further reveals that in the 1st instance when the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 5.7.89, Shri P. K. Nanda, the appellant had raise his grievance against M/s. Gem India, respondent No.1 only and that he had failed to include the name of 2nd respondent M/s. Sindhu Traders. When the respondent No.2 were not a party in the original complaint, to include them as respondent at the stage of appeal by the appellant was nothing but an after-thought and the same is not justified. The 2nd prayer of the appellant for granting him any relief on account of the voltage stabilizer is therefore, rejected.