A consumer is not entitled to a refund of the price of a defective product if the defect is not established and the complaint is filed after a considerable delay.

Mr. Justice Navin Chandra Sharma, President — This is an appeal filed M/s. Laxmi Refrigeration Works and others against the order of the District Forum, Ajmer dated 30.10.1992 whereby the District Forum directed the appellants to refund an amount of Rs. 5,455/- in respect of the cost of the refrigerator, Rs. 1,665/- as compensation for carrying the refrigerator for repairs, other compensation amounting to Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 500/- as costs.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the complainant-respondent filed a complaint on 20.6.1989 before the District Forum, Ajmer as against the appellants alleging that she had purchased a refrigerator from appellant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 5,455/- on 7.5.1984. After the refrigerator was taken to the residence and started by the complainant, it was not working properly. Accordingly the complainant reported the matter to appellant No. 1 was sent a mechanic at the residence of the complainant. The mechanic after inspection of the refrigerator told the complainant that it would have to be sent to workshop. Accordingly the refrigerator was taken at the business place of appellant No. 1. The complainant requested appellant No. 1 to replace the refrigerator. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 assured to replace the refrigerator, but the same was not replaced during the entire season. When the new season started for using the refrigerator appellant No. 1 informed the complainant that appellant No. 2, who manufactures the refrigerator, has stopped manufacturing double door refrigerator. The complainant requested appellant No. 1 to replace the refrigerator by a single door refrigerator. However appellant No. 1 told to the complainant that such replacement cannot be done. On 5.4.1985 appellant No. 1 sent back the refrigerator to the residence of the complainant. When it was started, it was giving sound and water also did not freeze into ice. Again the complainant took the refrigerator to the business premises of appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 always took the plea that spare parts are being obtained from the manufacturing Company. Ultimately on 9.3.1987 the complainant wrote to M/s. Expo Machinery Ltd., New Delhi which manufactures the refrigerator by a letter sent by registered post. A reply to the letter of the complainant was received from Expo Machinery Limited by its letter dated 20.3.1987. Appellant No.2 informed the complainant that the Company was referring the complaint to its Jaipur Branch under whose jurisdiction the area of Ajmer fell. It was further mentioned that the Company was requesting to Jaipur Branch to advise the concerned dealer to repair the refrigerator to the complainant's satisfaction and as per warranty terms. The complainant sent letters to the Jaipur Branch of the manufacturer and also sent a registered letter. However the Jaipur Branch did not send any reply. Ultimately the complainant sent a letter to the Jaipur Branch through Shri Pramod Jain, Advocate. Thereupon the Jaipur Branch wrote to M/s. Maruti Agency, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ajmer regarding removal of the defect. The complainant took the refrigerator at the workshop of Maruti Agency. The proprietor of that agency recovered an amount of Rs. 150/- for entry fees and Rs. 500/- for replacing some parts. The complainant paid these amounts and brought the refrigerator back to her house on 22.4.1989. The refrigerator was then even not working properly. The complainant again approached M/s. Maruti Agency which sent its mechanic. However it was pleaded that the mechanic was in a drunken stage and returned back. The complainant therefore filed the complaint for return of the amount of Rs. 5,455/- and for other compensation amounts. The total claim made by the complainant was Rs. 15.870/-.

3. It appears from the file of the District Forum that reply to the complaint was filed by the manufacturer and its Branch office viz. appellants No. 2 & 3 to the complaint. Appellants No. 2 & 3 stated in their