<br /> Present: Sh. R.S. Brar counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. P. Betab counsel for the opposite party No. 2.<br /> Opposite party No. 1 exparte.<br /> <br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> ORDER<br /> Gurdeep Singh complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties directing them to replace the refrigerator and to pay compensation.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that the opposite party No. 1 is manufacturer of Electrolux Kelvinator Refrigerators and the opposite party No. 2 is authorised agent of opposite party No. 2 for selling their refrigerators. The complainant on 2-5-2006 purchased one new refrigerator of opposite party No. 1 from the shop of opposite party No. 2 called National Sales Corp., Railway Road, Kotkapura vide bill No. 154 of 2-5-2006. The refrigerator was purchased by the complainant for his domestic use in his house. The refrigerator is defective from the very day of its purchase and is not functioning properly. It does not cool effectively and is useless because of its some manufacturing defect. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times to remove the defect of the machine, so that the same may be used properly and effectively but they did nothing to make the machine working. On complaint the opposite parties sent their mechanics for sometimes, who told the complainant that the machine has to be replaced because of its major defects which can be replaced by the opposite parties and is not repairable. The complainant on 18-9-2006 sent notices to the opposite parties to repair or replace the refrigerator and the opposite parties sent their mechanic to see the refrigerator who told that the machine has to be replaced because of its manufacturing defect but the opposite parties refused to replace the same on the request of the complainant or to make the same working properly. The refrigerator is still within its warranty period and the opposite parties are bound to replace the refrigerator as a whole or to replace its defective parts to make it functioning properly. The opposite parties are liable for breach of contract as they have not complied with the terms of guarantee and have acted extremely negligently in attending to the complaint of the complainant and are also liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and injury caused to him because of non functioning of refrigerator. The complainant has not been able to use this refrigerator as it does not cool and the complainant has been under great mental pressure because of negligent attitude of the opposite party No. 1 and 2. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. The learned counsel for the complainant was heard on the admission of the complaint and vide order dated 15.2.2007 the complaint is admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.<br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite party No. 1 appeared through Sh. Naresh Grover on 12.4.2007 and 3.5.2007 but later on he failed to appear on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and not filed written reply on behalf of opposite party No. 1, so the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.5.2007.<br /> 5. On receipt of notice the opposite party No. 2 appeared through Sh. P. Betab Advocate and filed written reply in which the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the Service Center of the company is at Moga. It is admitted that the answering opposite party sent its Mechanic Jagsir Singh who had found the refrigerator working properly. It is also admitted that the answering opposite party received the notice. The opposite party No. 2 sent the notice to the Service Head of the company opposite party No. 1 at Chandigarh Mr. R.K. Sharma, as the Service Center of the company is at Moga. It is wrong that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. The answering opposite party is not bound to replace the refrigerator as there is no defect in the same. So the complaint be dismissed with costs.<br /> 6. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, bill of refrigerator Ex.C-2, copy of notice Ex.C-3, acknowledgments Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, postal receipts Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.<br /> 7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vijay Kumar Proprietor National Sales Corporation, Kotkapura Ex.R-1, another affidavit Vijay Kumar Proprietor Ex.R-2, affidavit of Jagsir Singh Mechanic Ex.R-3 and closed their evidence.<br /> 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is entitled to replacement of refrigerator which is having manufacturing defect.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties.<br /> 11. The complainant have placed on the file his affidavit Ex.C-1 to substantiate his pleadings. He has placed on the file bill Ex.C-2 dated 2.5.2006 with regard to purchase of the refrigerator from National Sales Corporation, Railway Road, Kotkapura. The complainant has served legal notice Ex.C-3 upon the opposite parties.<br /> 12. The opposite parties have placed reliance on affidavit Ex.R-1 of Vijay Kumar Proprietor, National Sales Corporation, Railway Road, Kotkapura and supplementary affidavit Ex.R-2 of Vijay Kumar to substantiate their pleadings.<br /> 13. The opposite parties have examined Jagsir Singh Mechanic. His affidavit is Ex.R-3. He has deposed that he checked refrigerator of the complainant which was quite correct in its working. He is working as Mechanic in National Sales Corporation, Kotkapura.<br /> 14. Complainant has not examined any expert witness to establish that refrigerator had a manufacturing defect.<br /> 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to be provided to the complainant. So the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. However there is no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.<br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 18.12.2007<br />