IMPORTANT POINT
No deficiency in service could be found on part of OP appellant company where it rendered good amount of service to complainant, kept ready duly repaired refrigerator but respondent complainant for reasons best known to him did not take delivery of the same.

P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Member—Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint No.252/2002 decided on 10.9.2004 whereby the Godrej Company has been jointly and severally directed to pay in all an amount of. Rs.15,000 to the complainant towards compensation in lieu of replacement and compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered due to deficiency in service and also to pay Rs.1,000 as cost, the org. OP Nos. 1 & 2 have filed this appeal challenging the said award.

2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

3. The complainant purchased a refrigerator from the Authorised Dealer of O.P i.e. M/s. Raja Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd., Sakinaka, Andheri on 30.7.1999. It developed manufacturing defect and OPs failed to rectify the same and put it in good working order. The complainant therefore filed consumer complaint seeking refund of price of refrigerator and damages totally claiming Rs.19,300 from the OPs.

4. OPs filed written statement. According to the OPs customer was given services as and when complaints were received from the complainant. The service reports maintained by the respondents amply prove this fact. The complainant took all the advantages of free services rendered by the Company from the date of purchase of the refrigerator till he asked for refund of purchase, which the complainant has not entitled after having already received services free of charge. According to the OP demand for replacement or refund must be made in the first instance, which he did not do. Therefore, he is not entitled to claim refund after using the refrigerator for 4-l/2 years since the date of purchase. The OP further pleaded that the refrigerator is fully repaired and ready for delivery of which the intimation was given to the complainant, but he refused to collect the same from it. According to the OP refrigerator bought by the complainant was covered by warranty of 12 months, which expired long back. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay cost of replacement. The complainant opted for four years optional service contract and period of which expired after five years from the purchase date i.e. 30.7.2004. The OP pleaded that it rendered service under four years optional service contract only as and by way of customer satisfaction without admitting that the refrigerator sold to the customer had any manufacturing defects. The complainant was also offered an ex-change of the refrigerator with brand new one of equal quality and equal version without charging extra consideration. But, the complainant is adamant and he is not ready to act upon their advice. Therefore, they pleaded that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. On hearing both the parties and on perusing the documents, the Learned District Consumer Forum held OP/Company guilty of deficiency in service and directed to pay amount of Rs.15,000 in all to the complainant towards compensation in lieu of replacement and also Rs.1,000 as cost. As such, this appeal has been filed by Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd.

6. We heard submissions of Advocate Mr. R. D. Sulakhe for the appellant. None present for the respondent.

7. We are finding that the complainant purchased refrigerator on 30.7.1999 admittedly from the Authorised Dealer of Godrej & Boyce Company. After 2-l/2 years he filed consumer complaint claiming refund of price of refrigerator though warranty of one year expired on 30.7.2000 and four years optional service contract also expired on 30.7.2004 and complaint came to be filed on 20.6.2002. The counsel for the appellant Company brought to our notice the fact that on 2.8.1999, 19.1.2000, 16.2.2000, 11.7.2000, 24.10.2000, 21.10.2001, 8.4.2002 & 14.5.2002 the refrigerator was inspected by their technician and whatever defects pointed by the complainant respondent herein were rectified. In all 8 times, technician of Godrej & Boyce Company had visited the house of the complainant and rectif