Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—This appeal has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the order of District Forum dated 3.4.1992 by which the warranty period of the sealed unit of the Godrej Refrigerator was extended by three years w.e.f. 3.5.92.

2. Briefly the facts are that Sh. Amar Singh, complainant respondent No. 1 purchased a Godrej Refrigerator on 17.2.1987 from opposite party no. 1-respondent No. 2 and it was delivered to him on 4.3.1987. It was covered under 12 months warranty by the appellant followed by a four years of service contract. Respondent No. 1 opted for four years additional guarantee by paying extra amount to respondent No. 2. Thus, respondent No. 1 became entitled to a warranty for five years w.e.f. 4th March, 1987.

3. The refrigerator started giving trouble to respondent No. 1 after two months of its purchase. It was repaired by the appellant first on 5.6.1987 and again on 3rd June, 1988. The sealed unit was thereafter replaced by the appellant on 31.10.88. The replaced sealed unit was defective and it was again replaced on 29.5.1989. It did not work properly even thereafter. The third sealed unit was replaced on 7.2.91. Even then it did not work properly. It was replaced 4th time on 3.5.91 at the request of the complainant respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the warranty was expiring on 4.3.92 and if the Refrigerator was not properly repaired by the appellant-respondent No. 2, he after the expiry of the period of warranty, shall have to bear all expenses of the repair. Consequently a complaint was filed and it was prayed by respondent No. 1 complainant that the appellant and respondent No. 2 be directed to supply a new unit to the complainant before the expiry of the warranty period.

4. The learned District Forum granted the relief to the complainant as mentioned above i.e. the warranty period was extended by three years w.e.f. 3.5.1991. Respondent No. 2 has come up in appeal against the said order before the State Commission.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that according to the terms of the warranty opted by respondent No. 1 the warranty period was upto 4.3.92. According to him that period could not be extended any further by the Fora under the Consumer Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

6. We have duly considered the arguments of the learned Counsel but regret our inability to accept the same. It is true that according to the conditions on which the Refrigerator was sold by the dealer of the appellant to respondent No. 1 the warranty period was five years from the date of supplying the Refrigerator to him. It cannot be disputed that a consumer is not equal in bargaining power with the companies which manufacture consumer goods and especially companies like the appellant. Fridge has also become a necessity for the families and the consumer has to purchase one out of those available in the market. The principles of law are not static and in the changing society the out model concepts of law are being changed. There is great change in the theories propounded during the last century. The Courts have to safeguards the rights to the weak persons as there is tendency amongst the strong persons to push the weak to the wall. The manufacturer of goods in the end of 20th century cannot be allowed to exploit the lay consumer and obtain pecuniary advantage on him on the ground that the conditions of sale in all circumstances are binding on them. The Courts can always find out as to whether the terms of contract between the parties were fair or not. If those are not found to be fair, the Courts have ample powers to modify them. The Parliament by enacting Consumer Protection Act has provided a greater protection to the consumers. Freedom of contract is a reasonable ideal only, if bargaining power between the contracting parties is the same and not otherwise.

7. In America such contracts are called “adhesion contracts’. The word ‘adhesion contract’ has been