State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission M/S Madar Marketing vs Smti. Puja Dey on 10 November, 2015 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Andaman & Nicobar Islands Port Blair Present: Justice Asim Kumar Ray, President. Smti Biji Thomas, Member. Appeal No. 03 of 2015 M/s Madar Marketing, Junglighat, Port Blair, South Andaman and one others .........Appellant vs Smti. Puja Dey, W/o Shri. Koustub Biswas, R/o MSME Office, Industrial Estate, Dollygunj, Port Blair. ......Respondent Judgement Dated: 10th November, 2015 Judgment Asim Kumar Ray, J. President This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.05.2015 passed in CD Case No.22/2014 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, A & N Islands at Port Blair wherein the case was allowed directing the Opposite Party/ Appellant to replace the Refrigerator with a new one of similar description and if not feasible to replace it, to pay back the entire consideration money within 30 days from the date of the order. The factual background in brief is that on 23.10.2013 respondent/complainant purchased a Godrej Refrigerator being Model No.GFE 25SM3N, Unit Sr. No.1209340674 vide bill No.00323 from the Appellant/O.P at a consideration of Rs. 16,500/. The said refrigerator was installed at the residence of the respondent at Dollygunj by the technician of the appellant. It was found non functional on 25.05.2014. The matter was reported to the appellant but no action was taken. On 02.06.2014 the respondent took the refrigerator to the appellant's shop. She was asked to keep the refrigerator at the shop for 07 days for repair works. It was not repaired by that period. On 20.06.2014, the appellant took the refrigerator to the respondent's house and told her to switch it on after 03 hours. Accordingly, the respondent switch the refrigerator on but found the same defect. She immediately informed the appellant. On 22.06.2014 appellant sent one technician to the house of the respondent. The technician checked the refrigerator and found that the compressor was damaged. He also informed the respondent that the compressor had been changed by them. The technician said that the compressor might have been damaged during transportation. The technician left the house of the respondent giving assurance that the compressor would be changed by them. On query, the complainant was told subsequently that they would replace the compressor whenever the same would be available. The appellant did not take any action. On 11.07.2014 the respondent being accompanied by her husband had been to shop of the appellant, when they were told about non availability of the compressor with them. The appellant also allegedly misbehaved with them. Thereafter, finding no alternative, the complainant/respondent filed the case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, A & N Islands at Port Blair alleging deficiency in service and prayed for replacement of the refrigerator and a sum of Rs.2,100/ towards transportation and litigation cost. The appellant being opposite party contested the case by filing a written statement denying and disputing all the material averment set forth in the complaint and contended inter alia that Godrej Company would be a necessary party as the refrigerator was suffering from manufacturing defect. It was alleged that the case was filed by the respondent/complainant with a view to harass them and cause harm to their reputation. District Forum took up the matter recorded the evidence of the parties and received the documentary evidence in course of hearing. On completion of the hearing the impugned judgement was delivered by the District Forum. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement, the opposite party has preferred this appeal on the ground that impugned order i.e. Order dated 05.05.2015 passed by the District Forum is bad in law and on facts. The appellant have acted bonafidely and have also brought the brand new compressor from the Company which was informed to the respondent at the earliest but the respondent had refused to accept the same by stating that she had preferred a consumer case and she wants new refrigerator. The warranty Card together with terms and conditions were very specific that the delay in replacement of the compressor cannot be questioned and the same ought to have been appreciated by the District replaced the first compressor and had responded to the complaint of the respondent immediately. It should have been held that appellant cannot be held responsible for the manufacturing defect in the compre