Order No.   11    Dated   19/02/2016.

       The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased one refrigerator being 310L DLX White Fonna manufactured by o.p. The refrigerator was purchased from M/s Great Eastern Trading Co. on 10.1.11 and the said refrigerator was delivered and installed at complainant’s residence on 20.1.11. Since installation the refrigerator developed several problems i.e. faults in timer / relay, closing of doors, leakage of air, less cooling, etc. The said problems were recorded in the service reports issued by o.p. On 2.8.11 their service engineer opined to replace the refrigerator since they failed to solve the problems. O.p. assured several times that they would replace the refrigerator but in vain. Lastly on 17.5.14 the service engineer of o.p. visited the complainant’s residence and assured that the said refrigerator would be replace the several parts of that model were out of stock. Hence the application praying for replacement of the refrigerator along with compensation.

            O.p. appeared before this case by filing w/v. In their w/v they have stated that the installation report clearly shows that at the time of demonstration of the refrigerator the cooling was O.K. Therefore, o.p. denied that the alleged defect was inherent manufacturing defect. Complainant used the refrigerator till 29.7.11 and thereafter lodged his first complaint with o.p. which was accordingly taken care of. O.p. was all along prompt in giving service to complainant and there was no deficiency in service. When complainant lodged a complaint on 2.8.11 regarding cooling problem the service engineer of o.p. inspected the refrigerator and repaired the same.  Thereafter complainant had used the refrigerator till 2014 and as per his complaint on 17.5.14 o.p. inspected the refrigerator and it was noticed that the door was not being closed properly since 2011. O.p. has stated that the alleged defect is not at all a manufacturing defect since that was not detected at the time of installation. There was a talk of amicable settlement before Consumer Affairs Deptt. and complainant was required to make a payment of Rs.10,000/- against replacement of old refrigerator with the new refrigerator being model no.20091 NEO IC 305 ROY 4S Midnight Bloom (N). Both the parties agreed to that proposal but at a later stage complainant for the reasons best known to him denied to accept that proposal. Subsequently complainant asked for a model being NEO IC355 ROY which was of higher value. O.p. informed the complainant that they would not be able to replace the old refrigerator with any higher price model against payment of Rs.10,000/-. So, complainant is trying to harass the o.p. with a malafide intention. However, as a good gesture o.p. is yet to ready to replace the old refrigerator with a new one being 20091 NEO IC 305 ROY 4S Midnight Bloom subject to payment of Rs.10,000/-.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased one refrigerator being 310L DLX White Fonna manufactured by o.p. The refrigerator was purchased from M/s Great Eastern Trading Co. on 10.1.11 and the said refrigerator was delivered and installed at complainant’s residence on 20.1.11. From the documents annexed with the complaint petition we have observed that the service engineer of o.p. company attended the complainant’s residence and inspected the refrigerator and repaired the same. We have also observed that o.p. has offered the complainant replacement offer. As per the settlement complainant was required to pay Rs.10,000/- and o.p. would replace the refrigerator of complainant with a new model 20091 NEO IC 305 ROY 4S Midnight Bloom. Complainant initially accepted the offer but ultimately he declined for the reasons best known to him. However, as a good gesture o.p. offered a replacement offer as per settlement offer but at the time of argument complainant in person submitted in course of argument that he intends to get white colour refrigerator in the event of any order of replacement. And ld. lawyer of o.p. in course of reply submitted that there will no certainty as regards specification of colour. Therefore, we are in the view that we cannot order o.p. for replacement since complainant has opted for a specific colour. Therefore, instead of replacement order we find it just and proper to pass an order of refund of purchase of value of the refrigerator.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to refund a sum of Rs.19,290/- (Rupees nineteen thousand two hundred ninety) only to the complainant as purchase value of the refrigerator in question and is further directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only as compensation for the harassment and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            O.p. is also directed to collect the refrigerator in question from the complainant’s residence on the date of payment of the aforesaid awarded amount.           

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.