1.         The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased one LG Refrigerator Model No.255 from OP.1 vide Bill No.7291 dt.09.2.2012 for Rs.18, 000/- with 5 years warranty i.e. one year warranty on all parts and after that a 4 year additional warranty on compressor from the date of purchase.  It is submitted that on 26.12.2013 the refrigerator did not give proper cooling for which he registered a complaint vide No.131226001049 with OP.2 as per advice of OP.1 and the OP.2 assured to attend the fault on 27.12.13 but in spite of long wait of one week, the OP did not turn up.  It is further submitted that with the help of OP.1, the complainant repaired the refrigerator through a private mechanic on payment of Rs.4000/- towards charges and the OP.2 assured for a settlement with the complainant regarding cost of repair but in vain.  Hence he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.4000/- towards cost of repair with interest @ 18% p.a. from 05.1.14 and to pay Rs.53, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.         The OP.1 filed counter admitting the sale of refrigerator to the complainant and the defect noticed in compressor on 26.1.13.  It is contended that the OP has extended possible help when approached by the complainant and arranged mechanic to repair the refrigerator when the mechanic of OP.2 did not attend the same.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.         The OP No.2 also filed counter admitting the refrigerator under warranty on compressor for 4 years and after receiving the complaint regarding less cooling from the complainant, they referred the matter to their Authorized Service Centre (ASC) but the complaint could not be attended immediately which was out of their control.  It is further contended that on 21.1.2014 a technician from new ASC was deputed to provide service but the complainant refused to avail services.  Thus denying all other allegations of the complainant and denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     Heard from the Ops through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.  In this case, the purchase of refrigerator on 09.2.12 and facts of warranty for the period of 5 years extended by the manufacturing Company and the non cooling of refrigerator on 26.12.13 i.e. within the warranty period are all admitted facts.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant as per advice of the OP.1 has intimated the fact to the customer care of OP.2 on 26.12.2013 who said to have assured the complainant to attend the complaint on 27.12.13 and supplied a Mobile phone number to contact the mechanic of ASC if necessary.  The complainant submitted that when he contacted the mechanic in that number, the bearer of that number was no more a mechanic under OP and the said fact has been admitted by OP.2 in his counter stating that due to termination of old ASC, a fresh appointment of new ASC, the complaint could not be attended immediately.  It is seen that the statement of OP.2 that the warranty on refrigerator was expired on 09.2.13 is wrong in view of extended warranty of 4 years on compressor and the present situation arose due to fault on compressor.

5.                     The complainant stated that he waited for a week and as the mechanic did not turn up, he repaired the refrigerator privately with the help of OP.1 and spent Rs.4000/- towards repair.  The said fact is admitted by OP.1 in his counter.  Hence we have no doubt regarding the amount spent towards repair of the refrigerator.  Refrigerator is a very useful appliance for every home now-a-days.  In this case, if it remains unattended by the OP.2 for a week or any indefinite period, the complainant must have suffered and would definitely go for private repair.  In our opinion, by doing so, the complainant has not committed any wrong rather by not providing prompt service; the OP.2 has committed deficiency in service.  The customer cannot wait for an uncertain period anticipating repair to be conducted by an ASC.  Further it is seen that the wrong telephone number supplied by OP.2 was intentional, and the OP.2 has sent a mechanic of new ASC on 21.1.14 and by that date the refrigerator was repaired by a private mechanic on payment of Rs.4000/-.

6.         From the above facts and circumstances, it was ascertained that the refrigerator of the complainant was not attended by OP.2 that to within warranty period and it was privately repaired by the complainant on payment of Rs.4000/-.  This inaction of the OP.2 amounts to deficiency in service and the OP.2 is to be directed to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  Further due to non repair of the refrigerator, the complainant must have sustained some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  However, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant in the peculiar circumstances of the case except Rs.1000/- towards cost of this litigation.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.2 is directed to pay Rs.4000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 05.1.14 towards cost of repair and to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  No orders against OP No.1.

( to dict.)