LIBERTY ASSOCIATES PVT LTD Vs. DEEPLAL FATEHLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent absent despite service of notice. Hence heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The grievance of the respondent complainant was that he had purchased a double door fridge from the appellant for Rs.10,650/- on 27.11.1993, that since the cooling system in the fridge was quite defective, he contacted the appellant in that behalf and reported the defect to them. The appellant allegedly assured the respondent to send his mechanical engineer who did not arrive and thereupon the respondent had to again contact the appellant at Udaipur. The appellant directed him to bring the defective fridge to his business premises on 12.9.1994 but the appellant did not remove the defect and it was with great difficulty that the appellant replaced the defective fridge on 10.10.1994. The fridge so replaced was also defective and despite lodging complaints by him with the appellant, the defect therein was not removed. The appellant contested the complaint on the ground that the original fridge was replaced by it and, therefore, it had neither sold a defective goods to the respondent nor rendered deficient service to him.

(2.) The D. F. however did not accept the version of the appellant and directed it to remove the defects in the fridge within specified period and in the event of his failing to remove the defect, it should replace the defective fridge with a new one. The D. F. further awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation to the respondent complainant. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before us in this appeal.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the original fridge, which had been sold by the appellant to the respondent was defective and it was for that reason that the appellant had to replace the same. It is also gathered from the averments made by the respondent complainant in the complaint as also in the affidavit that he had to take the defective fridge for removal of the defects therein, to the business premises of the appellant at Udaipur and thus had to incur expenditure. The replaced fridge was also, according to the respondent complainant, defective. But the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent did not produce any evidence of any mechanical engineer or called for a report from him as per provisions of Sec.13 (1) (c) of the Act to prove any manufacturing defect therein. Such argument may be accepted for want of proof on manufacturing defect in the replaced fridge. But the sale of defective fridge by the appellant to the respondent in the beginning and the respondent taking pains in getting the same replaced by taking it to the business premises of the appellant at Udaipur and, therefore, the appellant not removing the defects therein for about a month too constitute rendition of deficient services by the appellant to the respondent.