Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant  purchased a Grinder from OP No.2 on payment of Rs.2700/-. The grinder has guarantee period of two years from the date of purchase. It is alleged inter-alia that  the grinder  became defective within the guarantee period and same was brought to the notice of OP No.3 who is authorized service centre of OP No.1. On 19.12.2013 it was placed before the OP No.3 for repair. Since, then the grinder was in custody of Op No.3 without repair. So, the complainant approached several  times to Op No.3 but no step was taken by Op No.3. So, the complaint was filed showing deficiency of service on the part of Ops.

4.                  Per contra, the OP no.2  filed written version contending that he has no knowledge about defect in the grinder. Since, he is the authorized dealer he has no role  in this matter. He has admitted in the written version that the OP No.1 is the manufacturer and OP No.2 is the service centre of OP No.1. So, he submitted that he may be exempted from the liability.

5.                   OP No.3 filed written version stating that on 19.06.2014 he has written  letter to complainant  to receive the grinder but complainant did not turn up. He has no deficiency of service in this regard.

6.                   After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                  “  The complaint is hereby allowed on contest against the Ops with cost. The Ops are hereby directed to refund the cost of the grinder amounting to Rs.2700/- to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied with by the Ops within a period of one month from the date of communication, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the same against the Ops in accordance with law.”

7.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is the complainant and he is aggrieved by the impugned order for  not giving any compensation but alleging refund of the cost of the grinder  and cost of litigation. According to him there is already evidence for mental agony and harassment but learned District Forum has omitted  to pass any order on payment of compensation.  But learned District Forum ought  to have passed any order for compensation payable to complainant. Now O.P.  has  not preferred any appeal. So, he submitted to allow the appeal by directing the OP to pay the compensation for the  mental agony and harassment  to the  complainant.

8.                      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they have no deficiency of service at all and they have taken care to remove the defect in the grinder. So far compensation is concerned he submitted that the complainant has no case so far. Moreover, he has submitted that they have already complied  the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the grinder was not defective within the warranty period.   So, the appeal should be dismissed.

9.             Considered the submission of both the parties,    perused the DFR and  impugned order.

10.            The complainant is required to prove the complaint case in his favour. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the grinder from OP No.2 and within warranty period the defect was found with the grinder. It is not in dispute that  the OP has attended the repairing work of grinder but caused delay to refund grinder. OP although stated to have issued letter on dtd.19.04.2014 to complainant to take back grinder but no such letter is produced before learned District Forum. So the verdict  went against O.P. Moreover, the OP has not challenged same in a separate appeal. Therefore, the complainant is found to have proved  deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  The impugned order does not show as to why compensation was not granted. Therefore, this Commission being the appellate authority has to re-appreciate the evidence  on record. On perusal of the complaint read with affidavit it appears that the complainant has suffered from mental agony and harassment  when no step was taken by the OP inspite of his several approach to repair or replace the new one.

11.        Section-14 of the Act is clear to show that the learned District Forum can pass order for compensation while defect is removed.  In the instant case, this Commission is of the view that the compensation should  be also awarded to the complainant for the mental agony meted out to him as per para-5 of the complaint coupled with affidavit. Therefore, while affirming the order the same order is modified  by directing the OP to pay compensation for Rs.10,000/- to the  complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which it will carry interest @ 12  per cent per annum  from the date of  order till payment is made. The rest  part of the impugned order would remain unaltered.

            The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

            Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.      

            DFR be sent back forthwith.