AGRO CHEMICALS Vs. RADHEY MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by M/s. Agro Chemicals (Opposite Party No.1) against the order of the District Forum, Bharatpur dated 14.5.93 directing to re fit the compressor in the refrigerator of the complainant which had been taken out for repairs in a correct condition or in the alternative to fit a new compressor in the refrigerator. The District Forum further awarded to the complainant compensation of Rs.1,000/ for the inconvenience caused to the complainant by not re fitting of the compressor after due repairs.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 13.11.91 complainant Radhey Mohan had filed a complaint in District Forum, Bharatpur alleging that on 14.3.86 he had purchased a Godrej refrigerator of 165 Lt. capacity from M/s. Agro Chemicals, Bharatpur who was the dealer of Godrej Co. for an amount of Rs.4,550/. It was alleged that there was a guarantee for a period of 5 years. Near about the month of March, 1990 the compressor of the refrigerator completely ceased to function. A complaint was made in this regard to Opposite Party No.1 who sent its mechanic. The mechanic removed the compressor from the refrigerator and the Opposite Party undertook to replace the compressor after its repairs or by a new compressor stating that the compressor has been sent to Godrej Company. However, for about 2 months the compressor was not re placed. Then an old repaired compressor was affixed in the refrigerator and the Opposite Party No.1 assured that either new compressor would be fitted or the repaired compressor after its receipt from the Godrej Co. would be affixed. The complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs.400/, which he deposited but no receipt of the same was given. The complainant also paid Rs.135 / for a relay on 6.6.90. However, the Opposite Party No.1 did not re fit the original compressor bearing No.187883 after getting it repaired from Godrej Co. despite repeated demands. The old compressor, which had been fitted ceased to function in March, 1991. The Opposite Party No.1 assured that the same would be replaced early but with no avail. The complainant, therefore, sent a notice on 10.7.91 1with no effect. With these averments, the complainant filed the complaint stating that the Opposite Parties have not fulfilled their obligation of guarantee for a period of 5 years. The complainant had faced inconvenience and loss on account of non-fitting of the compressor after repairs. He, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.5,000/ and also a direction for re fitting the original compressor after due repairs or providing a new compressor to the refrigerator.

(3.) The Opposite Party No.1 filed a version before the District Forum wherein it was admitted that Opposite Party No.1 had sold to the complainant Godrej refrigerator for Rs.4,550/ on 14.3.86. According to Opposite Party No.1, there is service guarantee of one year and the guarantee for remaining four years is at the option of the purchaser. The Opposite Party No.1 further stated that on the request of the complainant the original compressor had been changed and there was no question of getting the original compressor repaired from Godrej Co. It was also stated that according to the specified conditions if the sealed system has any defect, attempt is made to remove the defect by repairs and if that cannot be done, the sealed system is replaced. The original compressor of the complainant could not be repaired and, therefore, the same was replaced by another compressor. That was why during the guarantee period, the complainant never made any complaint about the replaced compressor. The Opposite Party No.1 therefore, prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.