KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD Vs. STATE
LAWS(NR)-1996-9-1
MONO POLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Decided on September 20,1996

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.Chakravarthy, - (1.) THIS shall dispose of the notice of enquiry issued by this Commission on July 7, 1987, charging the three respondents named above with having indulged in certain unfair trade practices falling within the provisions of Section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Prior to the issuance of the notice of enquiry (NOE), the Commission ordered an investigation into certain complaints made by Shri I. D. Jaiswal, an advocate in Bahraich (Uttar Pradesh).
(2.) Shri Jaiswal in his complaint alleged that he was sold a refrigerator on November 9, 1985, by the third respondent, Shriram Palace, that the refrigerator started giving trouble in the second week of March, 1986, that after some days the compressor of the refrigerator became dead and that besides the sub-standard refrigerator having been sold to him, the after-sales service rendered has not been satisfactory. The research wing of the Commission enquired into the matter and submitted the preliminary investigation report (PIR) in this Commission. According to the report, the facts are as follows : The complainant, Shri Jaiswal, purchased a refrigerator from the third respondent during the off-season discount sale. When the compressor of the refrigerator stopped working within a few days of purchase, the said respondent deputed an allegedly non-technical worker, one Shri Vishwakarma, who cut off the compressor on March 23, 1986, and replaced the same with another on April 22, 1986. Even after the replacement, there was no freezing and cooling in the refrigerator. The research wing concluded that the refrigerator being manufactured by the first respondent, Kelvinator of India Ltd., and supplied by the second respondent, Expo Machinery Ltd., the said respondents should have honoured the warranty/ guarantee for a period of one year for the refrigerator and four years for the compressor and sealed unit used in the refrigerator. As the refrigerator sold was found defective during the warranty period and the respondent did not render satisfactory after-sales service, the entire transaction has caused loss and injury to the complainant, Shri Jaiswal. Inasmuch as the respondent misrepresented to the consumer (complainant) that the refrigerator of the first respondent was of good quality when it was not, it has indulged in the unfair trade practice falling within the mischief of Section 36A(1) of the Act.
(3.) BASED on the preliminary investigation report, a notice of enquiry was issued on July 7, 1987, calling upon the respondents to put in their appearance in the Commission and to defend themselves against the charges. A copy of the preliminary investigation report was communicated to the respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.