GODREJ-G E APPLIANCES LTD Vs. MOTI DHARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitioners were opposite parties before the District Forum. Complaint of the respondent-complainant was regarding defective refrigerator (fridge) which he bought from the K.K. Radios, the second petitioner and which fridge was manufactured by the first petitioner - Godrej-GE Appliances Limited (Godrej). District Forum directed that the cabinet of the fridge be changed within a period of one month and if this was not done petitioners were to pay Rs. 25/- per day till then. Aggrieved respondent filed appeal before the State Commission which by the impugned order allowed the appeal and while setting aside the order of the District Forum instead directed that petitioners shall refund the entire amount of the price of the fridge paid by the respondent with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment of the price till respondent gets repayment. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded to the complainant by way of compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Now petitioners are aggrieved.

(2.) Respondent on 15.3.1996 purchased a 165 litres fridge from K.K. Radios, the dealer which fridge as noted above was manufactured by Godrej. Within seven months from the purchase, respondent found that there was a hole in the back wall of the fridge which had been bitten by rats. A portion of the back wall of the fridge was destroyed by rats entering into the fridge and eating the eatables kept in the fridge and thus making the fridge unusable. Respondent complained to the petitioners many times about the defect in the fridge and even offered that the fridge be replaced by another model and if there was any difference in price he would pay the same. Since the petitioners took no steps, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum. He sought refund of the price of the fridge along with interest @ 18% per annum and also claimed Rs. 10,000/- as damages. It was the case of the respondent that the back wall of the fridge was made of thermocol and not of any hard metal with the result that the rats could easily bite same and make the fridge useless to keep eatables. Respondent said that when he purchased the fridge it had been painted with the same shade all over the body. He said that when he purchased the fridge he was not told that back wall is made of thermocol. He thus believed it would be of same metal on all sides of the fridge. The literature with the fridge did not indicate that the back wall was not of any hard metal. He, therefore, did not in the circumstances want the cabinet to be changed. There was a warranteee of one year and within about six months the fridge had become unusable.

(3.) The case of the Godrej-manufacturer was that the back wall was not of thermocol but it was made of insulation material puff and there was an aluminium foil over it making it all 1 mm. thick. It was stated that it was a new design and many fridges have been sold with the same back wall and that there had been no complaint. State Commission had examined whole matter in depth and it has not accepted the defence of Godrej. It recorded that the case of the Godrej was that the back wall of the fridge was made of the material having latest and superior technology. But then State Commission wondered as to why this technology was not being used in other designs. Respondent was certainly misled into buying the fridge with the back wall of 1 mm . foil and when it is a matter of common knowledge that all the walls of the fridge are made of hard material. Respondent was never told and there was no indication also that back wall was not of the hard metal and it could not be damaged by rats, thus making fridge worthless. State Commission has also gone into the question if in the circumstances Godrej adopted unfair trade practice in selling the fridge without indicating that the back wall of the fridge was not made of any metal and it was made of only 1 mm. aluminium foil.