VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. VIVEK K ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals filed by the complainant and the O. Ps. against order dated 3.9.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No.552 of 1998. The District Forum-I decided the complaint case and issued direction to the O. Ps. , namely, M/s. Videocon International Ltd. , Aurangabad and Branch Office of Videocon International Ltd. , Chandigarh and M/s. Surinder Vidconic Private Ltd. , Chandigarh, to replace refrigerator purchased by the complainant by a new refrigerator without any further charges. The District Forum-I also issued a direction to the O. Ps. to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant, who paid the said amount to an engineer for examining the refrigerator.

(2.) Undisputedly, the complainant, Sh. Vivek K. Arora purchased refrigerator of 280 litres capacity, manufactured by O. P. , M/s. Videocon International Ltd. for a sum of Rs.16,000/- on 10.9.1996. The price of the refrigerator was Rs.18,000/- but a rebate of Rs.2,000/- was allowed to the complainant. The said refrigerator had defects and was not functioning properly. The complainant approached the O. Ps. with his grievance and the refrigerator was replaced by the O. P. Company, M/s. Videocon International Ltd. The replaced refrigerator also was a defective piece and the same was once again replaced by another refrigerator which also had defects in it and consequently in the third time, a new refrigerator of the same capacity was replaced. The complainant Shri Vivek Kumar Arora was, however, not satisfied with the performance of the refrigerator which was replaced for the third time and he approached the O. Ps. and told them about the refrigerator being defective. The O. Ps. gave another service refrigerator of capacity of 165 litres to the complainant, which was used by the complainant since 23rd August, 1997. The complainant was since dissatisfied with the refrigerator, which had been replaced for the one purchased by him of the capacity of 280 litres, filed the complaint case aforesaid and sought refund of the price i. e. Rs.16,000/- paid by him along with interest @ 24% p. a. w. e. f.10.9.1996 till its payment. He also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for suffering mental agony and pain. The complainant also claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of professional work of not only himself but of his wife as well. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was claimed on account of pursuing the complaint with the O. Ps. and towards costs of waste of material in the refrigerator. The costs of the complaint were also claimed by the complainant.

(3.) O. P. Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement and alleged that the complaint was baseless and a flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the answering O. Ps. and as such it was liable to be dismissed under Sec.26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short to be referred as the C. P. Act ). It was, however, admitted that the refrigerator manufactured by the O. P. Nos.1 and 2 was purchased by the complainant and the same was reported to be defective and replaced thrice only with a view to save the goodwill of the Company though the refrigerators supplied to the complainant were not having any manufacturing defect. Regarding the supply of the service refrigerator, it was contended that the same was done in an effort to psychologically satisfy the complainant and also in an endeavour of maintaining harmonious relations, which was found to be in perfect working condition. The allegation of goods being defective was denied. It was, however, admitted that O. P.3, M/s. Surinder Vidconic Pvt. Ltd. was the authorized dealer/distributor of O. P. Nos.1 and 2.