Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 71 (UTT)

Chhotey lal v. ARCHANA GUPTA

2008-02-21

C.C.PANT, IRSHAD HUSSAIN

body2008
ORDER (Per : C.C. Pant, Member) This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2005 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing the consume complaint No. 86 of 2001 and directing the opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 4,300/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order together with interest @ 8% p.a. from 08.11.1999 till the date of payment and also to pay sum of Rs. 1,500/- as cost of litigation. The appellant was opposite party No. 1 in the consumer complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case in brief, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a Videocon Refrigerator from the appellant M/s Chhotey Lal and Sons vide cash memo No. 3654 dated 22.03.1994 for a sum of Rs. 11,000/-. Since the date of purchase, the refrigerator was not functioning properly. The manufacturing company’s customer care center repaired/replaced the compressor of the refrigerator, but the defects persisted. After repeated requests and reminders, the refrigerator was replaced on 08.04.1999 by the company vide challan No. 1065 dated 08.04.1999. The complainant found subsequently that the replaced model of the refrigerator was of inferior quality and was different from the one, which was replaced. Inspite of several requests of the complainant to replace the refrigerator with a similar model or to refund the difference in price, no response was made. Upon this, a consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Froum, Dehradun, for the following reliefs: (a) To either replace the Refrigerator with a new one or repay back cost of the Refrigerator along with 18% interest from the date of payment. (b) Rs. 2,200/- be awarded to the complainant as damages for harassment suffered. (c) Rs. 1,100/- be awarded as cost of litigation which includes Rs. 550/- as cost of the notice. (d) Any other relief, to which the learned court deems fit be also awarded to the complainant against the opposite parties. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint per impugned order, but did not award the relief as prayed for by the complainant in her complaint. Instead, the District Forum directed the opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint per impugned order, but did not award the relief as prayed for by the complainant in her complaint. Instead, the District Forum directed the opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 4,300/-, the difference in price of the original model and the replaced one, to the complainant together with interest @ 8% p.a. from 08.11.1999 till payment and cost of Rs. 1,500/-, as stated above. Aggrieved by the said order, the dealer M/s Chhotey Lal and Sons (opposite party No.1 in the consumer complaint) has filed this appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the complainant-respondent No. 1 and perused the material placed on record in the light of the legal aspect of the case. 5. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that its dealership for the Videocon Refrigerators had terminated in the year 1996 and, therefore, it should not have been held liable for the payment of the sum awarded by the District Forum. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defective refrigerator was not replaced through the appellant, but the branch office of the manufacturing company had directly sent the refrigerator to the complainant. Controverting the contention, learned counsel for the complainant – respondent No. 1 submitted that the necessity for replacing the refrigerator had arisen because the appellant had sold her a defective refrigerator in 1994, causing her a lot of mental and physical harassment. Therefore, the appellant is also liable to pay the compensation awarded by the District Froum. 6. We have considered the submission made by the parties. It is not in dispute that the dealership of the appellant had been terminated in 1996 and the defective refrigerator was replaced in 1999 directly by the manufacturing company through its branch and not through the appellant. The fact, which led the complainant – respondent No. 1 to file the consumer complaint, was that the replaced refrigerator was of inferior quality. Thus, the cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant on the replacement of the refrigerator and the limitation for filing the complaint has also been counted from the date of replacement. The fact, which led the complainant – respondent No. 1 to file the consumer complaint, was that the replaced refrigerator was of inferior quality. Thus, the cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant on the replacement of the refrigerator and the limitation for filing the complaint has also been counted from the date of replacement. Thus, we are of the view that the consumer dispute be adjudicated in this case is not between the appellant – dealer and the complainant – respondent No. 1, but between the complainant and the manufacturing company. When the defective refrigerator was replaced, the appellant was not involved in the transaction in any way. For the reason that the necessity for replacement of the refrigerator had arisen due to the supply of the defective refrigerator by the appellant in 1994, the appellant could not have been held liable for the payment of the difference of price in the original refrigerator and the replaced one. The appellant was, in no way, responsible for replacement of the refrigerator of the complainant with a refrigerator of inferior quality. 7. The complainant – respondent No. 1, in support of her contention in respect of the quality of the replaced refrigerator, had submitted a quotation No. 2262 dated 24.09.2002 for Rs. 6,700/-, which was not rebutted by the opposite parties. Therefore, the finding of the District Forum in respect of the quality and cost of the replaced refrigerator appears to be sound and reasonable. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal succeed and is to be allowed accordingly and the order of the District Forum is to be modified accordingly. 9. Appeal is allowed. Order dated 04.10.2005 of the District Forum, in so far as it is against the appellant, is hereby quashed. The appellant is absolved from paying any amount to the complainant as ordered by the District Forum per impugned order. No order as to cost.