PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

          This is complainant’s appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) by allowing his complaint vide order dated 25.4.2011

2.                 The brief facts, of the case are, that the complainant purchased a Double Door Electroux Refrigerator from OP No.2 on 4.7.2006 for Rs.12,400/-. It was alleged that OP No.2 did not supply the copy of original bill, that the refrigerator developed a defect in the month of March 2010 and stopped working completely. The complainant made call to Customer Care Centre, whose number was given by OP No.2. Thereafter the company deputed two engineers who inspected the refrigerator and recommended to get it repaired from OP No.3. The OP No.3 told the complainant that Gas in the refrigerator was to be refilled and compressor was also defective and the same would be replaced without any charges as the same was under warranty period. The OP No.3 however charged Rs.3550/- from the complainant and promised to refund the said amount on producing the invoice, but when the invoice was produced the OP No.3 refused to refund the said amount. The refrigerator/compressor was got repaired  and handed over to the complainant with a three months warranty, but the refrigerator again stopped working completely before the expiry of three months warranty. The Customer Care Centre told the complainant to approach OP No.4. It was stated that the complainant made repeated requests and visits to OPs to repair the refrigerator and refund the amount, but to no effect. Hence this complaint was filed. 

3.                 Despite service OP No.1 did not turn up and it was accordingly proceeded against ex parte. On the other hand, OP No.4 refused to accept the service and hence it was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                 In its reply, OP No.2  submitted that at the time of purchase of the product in question; it raised the bill in  triplicate, original copy was retained by the Finance Company and the complainant was given second copy whereas third copy of the bill was retained by OP-2.. It was further stated that in the month of March, 2010 when the complainant approached OP No.2, he was given telephone numbers and address of the service station of the said product. It pleaded no deficiency in service on its part and a prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.

5.                 The OP No.3 in its reply submitted that the refrigerator of the complainant was repaired to his entire satisfaction and receipt was issued with regard to the charging of the amount of Rs.1250/- as service and filling of gas and Rs.2000/- as replacement of compressor, which was charged provisionally subject to the condition that complainant would produce the original bill/invoice for confirming sale of refrigerator and also to confirm whether the same was within the warranty period or not. Only then decision regarding refund was to be made. It was alleged that the complainant could not produce any invoice. Rests of the allegations made in the complaint were denied and a prayer was made to dismiss the same.

6.                           Parties led evidence in support of their case. 

7.                           After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

8.                           Feeling aggrieved with the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

9.                           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

10.                       The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the learned District Forum did not appreciate properly the facts of the case, that OP No.2 and 3 have been jointly and severely directed to refund the amount of Rs.3250/-, though the said amount was charged only by OP No.3 and the complainant had specifically mentioned in para 8 of the complaint in this respect. In the prayer clause also a request was made to direct the OP No.3 alone to refund the aforesaid amount. It was also contended that though the complaint was allowed but no compensation was awarded towards litigation expenses or harassment meted out to the complainant for not repairing the refrigerator in time. We find sufficient merit in this contention of the complainant.  A perusal of the complaint shows that the compressor was within warranty period but even then OP/respondent No.3 charged a sum of Rs.3250/- from him for repairing the same. The complainant have requested that OP No.3 be directed to refund the said amount but the learned District Forum introduced OP No.2 also and directed it to refund the amount. We therefore, modify the said order and direct that the amount of Rs.3250/- shall be refunded to complainant by OP No.3.

11.                       According to the complainant he had purchased the refrigerator on 4.7.2006 and its stopped working in March, 2010 due to the defect in the compressor of the refrigerator, which carried warranty of 5 years. It was got repaired from OP No.3 who gave a further warranty of three months but on 25.6.2010 its stopped functioning again.  OP No.3 replaced the big original compressor of the refrigerator which had the power to run a double door refrigerator  with a small compressor, which could only run the single door refrigerator.  In spite of repeated requests the refrigerator was not repaired due to which the complainant had to remain without the facility of the refrigerator and then to engage a counsel for filing the present complaint. When the District Forum found merit in the contention of the complainant it was advisable to award litigation costs also. We are therefore, of the opinion that the complainant would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.2000/- towards harassment and Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation.

12.                       In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present appeal must succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 25.4.2011 is modified to the extent that the amount of Rs.3250/- along with interest and penal interest as awarded by the learned District Forum shall be paid by OP No.3 to the complainant. The OPs/respondents No. 1 to 4     shall jointly and severally pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation before the District Forum. The OPs/respondents shall also pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs of this appeal.

          Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.