SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT.…                    The brief history of case is that, the complainant had procured a Samsung Refrigerator, bearing model No.RS28K3343D2,03LT4PAH904482E on dated 21.03.2017 from the OP.no.2 for Rs.26,500/-. But after a month of its use the refrigerator reported defunct as inherent defect. So the complainant approached the OP.1 & 2 being the dealer and manufacturer company through personal and phone but for no action.  Thereafter the complainant again approached the OP.1 over phone bearing toll free no.180030008282 where the OP.1 assured to attend within 24 hours and advised the complainant to deposit the copies of bank pass book, voter ID card, Aadhar card, affidavit etc before the local service care and as per instructions the complainant did the same but also for no use. Hence the complainant finding no other way again approached the OP.s through legal notice by his counsel on 07.07.2017 but the entire efforts became futile. The complainant being a petty businessman dealt with cool drinks business sustained huge loss in his business in summer season due to defective product and inaction of OP.s hence contends that he harassed due to the deficiency in service by OP.s, so prayed to direct the OP.s to pay the cost of the refrigerator Rs.26,500/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.         The counsel for OP.No.1 entered his appearance and filed counter to contend that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant approached this forum not with clean hands. The allegation of inherent manufacturing defect is without supporting or relying any expert report. The contentions of complainant are self explanatory, false & frivolous and the complainant should have put the same with strict proof. The complainant is not a consumer as the instant dispute is not a consumer dispute. He further contends that there is no deficiency in service by this OP, so prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

3.         The counsel for OP.2 has filed his counter wherein he averred that the complainant purchased the refrigerator from OP.2 and whose local limit and cause of action is within Jagdalpur, Dist of Bastar, State of Chattishgarh, so this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case, hence prayed to dismiss the case in the limine.

4.         The counsel for all the parties heard the case at length. The counsel for complainant has filed copy of some documents. The OP.s failed to file any documentary evidences and affidavit in support of their claim, so the forum decided to proceed the case basing on documents as available in record on merit. Submissions considered.

5.         It reveals from record that the complainant has procured the refrigerator in question on dt.21.03.2017 and the same reported defect after a month of its purchase i.e. within full valid warranty period of one year. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s through phone, personal visit and as well as through legal notice by his pleader reporting the so called defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced the same with a new one. Perusing the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the set in question purchased by the complainant has inherent manufacturing defect. The OP.s being duty bound to render service with a lenient manner after intimation but in the present case the OP.s did not follow the warranty norms, and the OP.1 is as the principal is liable for the deficiency occurred on the part of its agent. As thus the complainant suffered mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses for the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence under compulsion he craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.

6.         From the pros and cons, it is observed that, the OP.2 challenged in their counter that the forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the case, but in this case the OP.1 is the manufacturer having its service center as well as carrying business of profit within this local limit of Nabarangpur but failed to render service in a valid period of warranty is illegal, so the contention is baseless. We found that, the action of OP.s is against the principles of law of the land and also we found arbitrary and unfair actions on the part of OP.s which amounts to deficiency in service, as thus the complainant is lawfully entitled for relief. However as the OP.1 is the manufacturer of the said product, the complaint is allowed against OP.no.1 with costs.           

ORDER

1.         The opposite party no.1 above is hereby directed to pay the cost of the refrigerator set Rs.26,500/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand & five hundred only) in place of the said defective refrigerator from his house, inter alia, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, the total sum shall carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Order pronounced on 12th day of May' 2018.

    Sd/-                                                                              Sd/-

   MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT,DCDRF,

                                                                                  NABARANGPUR