S K AGGARWAL Vs. GODREJ GE APPLIANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Mr. S. K. Aggarwal, complainant for short, purchased a frost free refrigerator from the opp. party on 26.6.94 for Rs.16,625/-. the fridge carried warranty for one year and a service agreement for four years from the date of purchase. The complainant found that the food articles kept in the fridge got frozen. The complainant got legal notice dated 4.4.95 served both on the manufacturer as well as dealer who were ultimately arrayed as Opp. parties 1 and 2 respectively. The manufacturer advised the local dealer to do the needful by its letter dated 11.4.95 with copy to the complainant. A mechanic deputed by the Opp, parties visited the complainant on 25.4.95 and noted in the job card that the thermostat was defective and required replacement. He was, however, not allowed to replace the same. The Opp. party, through its Senior Service Executive, is stated to have written to the complainant vide his letter dated 19.5.95 bringing it on record that the Opp. parties mechanic offered to replace the thermostat but he was not allowed to do so and requesting the complainant to let him know when the mechanic could come for replacement of the thermostat. The complainant, however, insisted on either refund of the total. price paid by him alongwith 24% interest or replacement of the fridge by a new one. He filed a complaint before District Forum, which was contested.

(2.) The plea of the Opp. parties was that there was no manufacturing defect, that the thermostat was a small part and the same could be easily replaced and the Opp. parties, in fact, offered to replace the same but the mechanic was prevented from doing so by the members of the family of the complainant. On a consideration of the material before it, the District Forum held that no deficiency in service had been established and, accordingly, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. S. S. Sindhi, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. S. Kumar, Advocate for the respondent and have perused the records.