Samaresh Kumar Mitra,  Presiding Member.

This case of the Complainants that they purchased a Refrigerator (SAMSUNG RT34M374BS321L TRS REF SET) in the name of Smt. Basana Banik on 15.04.2017 from the Opposite Party No.1  Great Eastern, Great Eastern Trading Co at Mahesh, Serampore, Dist-Hooghly, with a consideration of Rs.29,600/- on 15.04.2017 vide Invoice No. 17/SA/1718/00923 and the said Refrigerator was delivered on 17.04.2017 or 18.04.2017 and the expert of the Company (Samsung) given the demonstration on 22.04.2017 and that after a few days from purchasing the said Refrigerator  the functioning of the said Chiller tray was improper and then the Complainant No.2 went to the Opposite Party No.1 and told regarding the said problem and the representative of Opposite Party No.1 told the Complainant no.2 that all liabilities devolved upon the manufacturing Company, Samsung and they, the Great Eastern Trading Co., Serampore did not have any liabilities regarding the solution of the problem in the said Refrigerator and they also added that after sales service was not their responsibility and the Opposite Party No. 1 on selling such product, has been earning profit and thus, Opposite Party No.1 has full responsibility to take care of after sale service and here not providing the after sale service on receipt of complaint on non-performance of the product sold by them, is unfair trade practice and intentional negligence in providing service and after that on 30^th April, 2017 Complainant no.2 informed the matter to Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd through Samsung Customer Care no. 1800407267864 and lodged a complaint vide Complaint No.4235544931 and accordingly the Mechanic/Engineer of Samsung Service Centre (Serampore) came to their house and tried to solve the problem but they could not and the defect/problem persisted and again on 19^th May, 2017 the Complainant no.2 complained before Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through Samsung Customer Care and lodged another complaint vide Complaint No. 4235996673 and accordingly again the Mechanic/Engineer of Samsung Service Centre (Serampore) came to  their house and tried to solve the problem as usual but ultimately they failed and they told that the said chiller tray was defective one since it was packed and they also stated that the part/code no. of that particular chiller tray which was given with the said Refrigerator came with the chiller tray which was not its part, rather some other model of chiller tray ought to have come with the said Refrigerator and after that telephonic communication and e-mail have/had been by the Complainant No.2 and the Complainant No.2 has put many complaints before the Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd through their Customer Care no. 1800407267864 but all these have not till date any result.

The complainants also states that the Complainant no.2 requested the Opposite Parties in several occasions to solve the defect and/or replace the defective Chiller tray with a new one but the Opposite Party no.1 or Samsung India Electronics Private Limited did not bother to pay any heed towards the said requests and the problem till remains and that for the aforesaid conduct of the Opposite Parties and Service Centre of Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. the Complainants have been suffering from mental agony because the complainants cannot get the full utility of the product purchased inspite of paying the agreed consideration price which resulted us to suffer mental agony and that the Complainant Nos. 1 & 2 and their family members till date could not even use the said defective Refrigerator with a peace of mind and it is also mentioned here that on 26.10.2017 Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd informed them by two Phone No. 1203301700 and 1204028200 that they shall replace the said defective Refrigerator with a new one within a new one within a day but no such action had/has taken by the Company till date and that finally on 13.03.2018 the Complainant no. 2 forwarded one letter by speed post to the Opposite  Party no.1 to 3 requesting them once again to refund back the entire consideration price with interest  but till today no response from any of the Opposite Parties has come and lastly on 27^th April, 2018, the Complainant no.2 again complained before Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through Samsung Customer Care and lodged another complaint vide Complaint no. 4257441859 and that such aforesaid activities on the part of the Opposite Parties are nothing but deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice for which the Complainant no.1 & 2 have been subjected to mental agony and harassment for which the Complainants required to be compensated adequately and the cause of action firstly arose on 15.04.2017 when the complainants purchased the said Refrigerator in the name of Basana Banik and lastly on 13.3.2018 when the complainant no. 2 sent a letter to the opposite party no. 1 and copy of the said letter forwarded to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 for refunding back the entire consideration price with interest.

            Complainants filed the complaint petition praying directions upon the opposite parties to give show cause and to refund a sum of Rs.29,600/- with interest and to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- jointly for deficiency of service and mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost and to give any other relief/ reliefs.

            The opposite party No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him.  This opposite party submits that the complainants have every liberty to avail the warranty services free of cost within the warranty period and in the instant case the manufacturer is liable to provide the after sales and service of the refrigerator to the complainants and the complainant is also entitle to get the warrant services from the manufacturer through the authorized service centre of the manufacturer i.e. the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the opposite party no. 1 herein has no liability or responsibility only on the plea that the opposite party no. 1 sold the refrigerator to the complainants and the allegations of the complainants for technical defects if any and as such may be presumed that the refrigerator is having some technical problem and if the manufacturer failed to provide services to the complainants if any at all for which the opposite party no. 1 being a seller cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever and the grievances of the complainant can only be redressed if any by the concerned manufacturer only through their respective service centre and as such for that reason the opposite party no. 1 being the seller of the refrigerator cannot be blamed in any circumstances and not liable in any manner whatsoever and it is the settled principles of law that in case of the allegation of manufacturing defect of the goods on that case the sellers or the dealers and the complainant failed to prove the allegations that refrigerator is having any manufacturing defect or not and also the complainants failed to submit any expert report before the ld. Forum in support of the contention as to whether the refrigerator is having any kind of defects or not and as such mere assumption, presumption that the refrigerator is defective that cannot be entertained in any circumstances in the eye of law unless same has been proved by expert report as specifically mentioned u/s 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after obtaining the expert report if it has been established that the refrigerator is having any manufacturing defect on that case the complainant can get the free service of the refrigerator to be repaired or to make it defect free by the authorized service centre of the manufacture i.e. the opposite party nos. 2 to 4  if the expert report established that the refrigerator is having manufacturing defect and that cannot be repaired in any means only and for that the present opposite party no. 1 cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever with the reasoning that the refrigerator was purchased from the opposite party no. 1.

            The opposite party No.1 also submits that in the purchase invoice dt. 15.4.2017 it has been indicated and duly undertaken by the complainants that “goods once sold cannot be taken back or exchange” and as such the demand of the complainant is not maintainable in law and facts and also the prayer for refund of the money as claimed by the complainant is also beyond the spirit of the trade practice for which the complaint case is a fit case for dismissal with exemplary cost against the opposite party no. 1 and the opposite party no. 1 is an agent or dealer or seller of the refrigerator and as a seller the opposite party no. 1 already deposited the entire amount of selling price of the refrigerator to the manufacturer i.e. the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and also to the Govt. of West Bengal as VAT and a meager amount of commission of Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- only earned as commission by the opposite party no. 1 and as such the opposite party no. 1 is not in a position to refund the entire amount of purchase price of the refrigerator to the complainant in any circumstances and as such question of refund is beyond the limit of opposite party no. 1 and in the purchased bill dt. 15.4.2017 the customer undertook that “I as a customer do agree that warranty/ guarantee offered on goods will be undertaken by the manufactures only and under no circumstances your company will be liable for any complaints whatsoever” and as such the complainant is bound by the terms of the purchase invoice and for which the allegation made by the complainant is not lies upon the answering opposite party no. 1 in any circumstances and as regard the liability of the opposite party no. 1.is no way liable and responsible to pay any compensation, cost etc to the complainant and thus, the opposite party no. 1 prays for dismissal of the instant case.

            The opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against them. These opposite parties submit that the Complainants alleges manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question and alleged manufacturing defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter written submissions of the Complainant and needs proper analysis test report to confirm the same and the Complainants have miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of the Ld. Forum and that the Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly holds that where the Complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the Ld. District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the Complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate’ Laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defects and to report its findings thereon to the Ld. District Forum within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the Ld. District Forum and thus it can be inferred that the underlying proposition of the Consumer Protection Act is the analysis of the goods in question through appropriate laboratory to determine whether there exist any defect as alleged or not and the word “shall” as mentioned in the provisions of the Act clearly indicates that is obligatory and not discretionary and it is also worthwhile mentioning here that present complainant is filed without any expert opinion which will prove that the refrigerator is not working properly and merely by  written assertions of the Complainant it cannot be ascertained that the refrigerator is not working properly and that the refrigeration in question is required to be checked by the proper analysis/test by the appropriate Laboratory:- as per the section13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act  and it has been held in the case of Jivrajbhai Bhikabhai Kakadi Vs. Authorized Signatory,  Mega Automobile Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (II) CPJ 715 (NC) that as the complainants could neither prove manufacturing defect by providing any cogent evidence by any authorized expert nor any tests were carried out by the Government Laboratory as per Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  as there was no manufacturing defect and it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ajay Kumar Thakur Vs. Jaiswal Motors & Ors. 2017 (II) CPJ 387 (NC) has held that in the absence of any credible evidence that there exists any manufacturing defect, the petitioner is not entitled to replacement of the entire purchase price. 

          The Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 also states that the Complainant has by way of relief sought compensation without in any manner demonstrating that any loss has in fact been occasioned and in what manner computation of compensation  claimed has been made and that the complaint of the Complainant is thus a motivated attempt to obtain unfair advantage and is accordingly liable to be dismissed on this ground along and it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 113,that no damages are payable for mental agony in cases of breach of ordinary commercial contacts and further in Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Prio Ranjan Roy, (1997) 6 SCC 487, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where damages are awarded there must be assessment thereof and it was also held that the order awarding damages must contain an  indication of the basis upon which the amount awarded is arrived at and it further submitted that the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Shiv Prasad Paper Industries Vs. Senior Machinery Company, 2006 (1) CLT 527 (NC)  has held that ‘An Equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired’ and further in M. J. Abraham Vs Angel Agencies & Ors, III (2000) CPJ 544 and Videocon International Ltd. Vs. K. Vijayan & Others, 1999 (I) CPR 20 it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that for replacement of product the defect must be manufacturing and for proving manufacturing defects Expert Report is  essential   and  that the Complainants have by way of relief sought compensation without in any manner demonstrating that any loss has in fact been occasioned and in what manner computation of compensation claimed has been made and the complaint of the Complainants is thus a motivated attempt to obtain unfair advantage and is accordingly liable to be dismissed on this ground along and it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 113, that no damages are payable for mental agony in cases of breach of ordinary commercial contracts and that the Complainants have sought the relief of refund of the purchase  price for the said refrigerator and /or replacement of the said refrigerator with a new one and it is submitted that refund/replacement is permissible neither in law nor under the terms of warranty policy and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court Vs. Monotype India Ltd., New Delhi, 2000(1) CPC 3 has clearly held that when terms of warranty does not cover refund or replacement then consumer cannot claim either replacement or refund during or after the lapse of warranty period  and the consumer can only claim repairing of the product if permissible under the terms of service contract or warranty and it is well established, including by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Susheel Kumar Galgotra, (2006) 4 SCC 644,  that where a warranty condition is specifically stated, a contrary implied warranty cannot be imputed and further in Bharaati Knitting V/s. D.H.L. Worldwide, (1996) 4 SCC 704, the  Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that that in case of specific term in the contract, the parties will be bound by the terms of the contract.

Before proceeding to specifically deal with and/or controvert the allegations contained in the said Complaint petitions which are dealt with hereinafter and without any prejudice thereto the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 state as follows:

1.   The Complainants allegedly purchased a refrigerator being Model No. RT34,374BS321LTRS REF SET [HEREINAFTER “Refrigerator”] from the Opposite party No. 1 [hereinafter ÖP”] on April 15, 2017.   However, the Complainants have failed to bring on record the purchase invoice of the said Refrigerator.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the Refrigerator comes with a comprehensive warranty of one year only.  The aesthetic parts, like the chiller tray, ice tray, bottle racks, etc. are not covered by the warranty.  The warranty covers only the defects in product arising out of manufacturing or faulty workmanship within the warranty period.  The warranty of the product means that in case of any problem with the refrigerator, the refrigerator will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the refrigerator is subject to conditions mentioned in the warranty policy that comes with the product manual.  The copy of the warranty cast is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-Ä”
3.     The Complainants alleges that within few months from the date of purchase of the said Refrigerator, it was observed that the chiller tray / ice tray [hereinafter ‘said tray’] of the said Refrigerator was having some issues. The first complaint was allegedly lodged on April 30, 2017 by the Complainant no.2 through the Customer Care Toll Free No. and allegedly, the Technician of the answering OPs visited the residence of the Complainants.  However, it is pertinent to state here that when a Service Request is lodged and the technician visits to render service, the customer is issued an “Acknowledgement of Service Request”, inter alia, recording the details of the dispute in product and the services rendered to such customer.   However, in the instant case the Complainants has failed to bring on record any Acknowledgement of Service Request” to substantiate the Service Request being lodged and the visit of the technician in respect thereof.
4.   Similarly, the Complainants failed to bring on record any such Acknowledgement of Service Request” about the subsequent service request which was allegedly lodged on May 19, 2017.  
5. It is pertinent to state here that the Complainants have failed to bring on record the alleged e-mail communications with the answering Ops, wherefrom it can be ascertained that there had been repeated communications with the answering Ops.
6.  The answering opposite parties state and submit that as the Complainants had allegedly faced an issue with the said tray of the Refrigerator.  If the Ld. Forum permits then necessary inspection can be carried out and if there is any defect in the said chiller tray as alleged or at all, then the answering opposite parties being a consumer centric Company will replace the said chiller tray free of cost. 
7. The answering opposite parties state and submit that the Complainants” demand for total replacement of the refrigerator is unjustifiable and baseless. It is repeated and reiterated that the chiller tray, being an aesthetic parts of the refrigerator, is not within warranty coverage.
8. It is pertinent to state here that the Complainants have repeatedly failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the said Refrigerator and / or deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties.
9. The answering opposite parties state and submit that there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite parties and / or any manufacturing defect in the said Refrigerator as alleged by the Complainants.                                                                                  

            The complainants filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainants in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version so it is needless to discuss.

            Complainants and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainants is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainants is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainants are the Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainants here in is a consumer of the opposite parties.
2. Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 2,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. The complainant in his written argument stated that they purchased a refrigerator at a consideration of Rs.29,600/- on 15.4.2017 from the opposite party no. 1 which was delivered on 17.4.2017 or 18.4.2017 and demonstrated on 22.4.2017 or 23.4.2017. After a few days of purchase it is observed that some problem in the chiller tray of the said refrigerator and said chiller tray was not functioning properly. So, the complainant no. 2 went to opposite party no. 1 and told regarding the said problem. On his turn the representative of opposite party no. 1 told that all liabilities devolved upon the manufacturing company and they have no liability upon that sale. It is the averment of the complainant as the opposite party no. 1 earned profit by selling that product so he has responsibility to take care of after sale service. After that on 30.4.2017 the complainant no. 2 informed the matter to Samsung India Electronics PVT. Ltd through customer care of the said company and lodged a complaint being no. 4235544931 and accordingly the mechanic/ engineer of Samsung Service Center came to their house and tried to solve the defect but could not solve the problem. Again on 19.4.2017 the complainant no. 2 lodged another complaint and accordingly mechanic/ engineer of Serampore Service Centre of the company came to their house and tried to solve the problem but failed and told that chiller tray was defective one since it was packed and also stated that the part/ code number of the particular chiller tray which was given with the said refrigerator was not of that refrigerator. In other word, the refrigerator came with the chiller tray which was not its part rather some other model of chiller tray ought to have come with the said refrigerator. Thereafter many telephonic communications and E-mails have been made by the complainant no. 2 and many complaints filed before the Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd through their customer care number but of no result. The complainant no. 2 on several occasions requested the opposite party to solve the defect and/ or replace the defective chiller tray with a new one but the opposite party no. 1 or the Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd did not bother to pay any heed towards the request and the problem till remains. For the aforesaid act of the opposite parties the complainants have been suffering from mental agony as the consumers cannot get the full utility of the product purchased inspite of paying the agreed consideration price which resulted to suffer mental agony. It is also stated that on 26.10.2017 Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd informed them through telephone that they shall replace the said defective refrigerator with a new one within a day but no such action has taken by the company till date. Subsequently, on 13.3.2018 the complainant no. 2 forwarded one letter through speed post to the opposite party nos.1 to 3 requesting them once again to refund back the entire consideration price with interest but till to date no response has been received from the end of opposite party. Lastly, on 27.4.2018 the complainant no. 1 again complaint before the Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd through its customer care. In accordance with the evidence on affidavit of the complainants, the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are bound to submit the job sheet of the service engineer who came to the house of the complainants and tried to solve the problem as usual but ultimately failed. From the above averment the complainants deprived of availing the service of the said purchase from the opposite party so they filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying directions upon the opposite party as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.

The opposite party no. 2, 3 and 4 in their argument mentioned that present complaint is filed without any expert opinion which will prove that the refrigerator is not working properly and merely by written assertions of the complainant it cannot be ascertain that the refrigerator is not working properly that the refrigerator-in-question is required to be checked by the proper analysis/ test by the appropriate laboratory as per Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act.

It is pertinent to mention that Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ajay Kumar Thakur vs. Jaswal Motors and others 2017 (I) CPJ 387 (NC) held that in the absence of any credible evidence that there exist any manufacturingdefect the petitioner is not entitledto replacement of the product or refund of the entire purchased price. Opposite party also refereed other decision of Hon’ble National Commission in TATA Motor vs. Rajesh Tyagi and HIM Motors Showroom 2014 (1) CPC 267 held that the onus to prove the manufacturing defect was on the complainant and further it was necessary to obtain expert opinion before saying that there was manufacturing defect. Another case decision of Hon’ble National Commission Shiv Prosad Paper Industries vs. Senior Machinery Company, 2006 (1) CLT 527 (NC) held that and equipment on machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired. The opposite party further averred that the complainants alleged that within a few months from the date of purchase of the said refrigerator observed that the chiller tray/ ice tray of the said refrigerator was having some issues. The first complaint was allegedly lodged on April 30, 2017 by the complainant no. 2 through the customer care toll free number and allegedly the technician of the answering opposite parties visited the residence of the complainants. However, it is pertinent to state that when a service request is lodged and the technician visits to render service. The customer is issued an acknowledgment of service request interalia, recording the details of the dispute in product and the services rendered to such customer. However, in the instant case the complainant has failed to on record any acknowledgment of service request to substantiate the service request being lodged and the visit of the technician in respect thereof. The answering opposite parties state and submit that as the complainant had allegedly faced and issue with the said tray of the refrigerator. If the Ld. Forum permits the necessary inspection can be carried out and if there is any defect in the said chiller tray as alleged or at all then the answering opposite parties being a consumer centric company will replace the said chiller tray free of cost. The demand of the complainant for replacement of the refrigerator is unjustifiable and baseless. It is repeated and reiterated that the chillier tray being and aesthetic parts of the refrigerator is not within warranty coverage. The complainants have repeatedly failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator and or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and other allegations leveled by the complainant are denied in paras.

After perusing the case record and documents it appears from the photocopy of tax invoice dt. 15.4.2017 that a refrigerator of SAMSUMG RT34M3743BS 321 LTRS REF SET was purchased in the name of complainant no. 1 from the opposite party no. 1 by paying a sum of Rs. 29,600/-. The date of delivery has been fixed on 22.4.2017. So, it is transparent that complainant purchased the impugned refrigerator of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 company by paying a sum of Rs.29.600/- from the opposite party no. 1 and became the consumer of opposite party nos.1 to 4. After a few days of said purchase when the complainant found the defective chiller tray and immediately lodged a complaint before the opposite party company through its toll free number. In response to that complaint engineers/ experts of service center of opposite party company visited the said refrigerator to remove the defects, if any but they failed to provide service as a result, the complainant compelled to file further complaint before the opposite party company. According to the complaint petition that on 26.10.20217 through telephonic conversation with the company person from Gaziabad it is stated that they will return the impugned refrigerator and agreed to replace the said refrigerator by a new one. As a result, the complainant waited for a few days for getting the refrigerator being replaced. The complainant wrote another letter dt. 27.10.2017 stating that all his efforts come into all in vain. The complainant in several occasions communicated the opposite party company through e-mail (photocopy in the case record) and letters but the opposite party did not pit no bid at the utterance of the complainant. So, getting no alternative the complainants preferred the recourse of this Forum alleging the deficiency of service of the opposite party. After perusing the documents and case record it appears that the complainant did not avail of the newly purchased refrigerator properly as the chiller tray was not functioning properly, so they immediately informed the matter to the opposite party no. 1 and the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 Company. The photocopies of e-mails depicts that the complainant tried their best to get the service of the opposite party but the opposite party failed to provide appropriate service. During the period of contesting the case the opposite party always tried to save their own skin by the name of non suppliance of acknowledgement of service request. The complainant approached the opposite party no. 1 to buy a refrigerator of a branded company with an aspiration to get the appropriate service from a renounced company but the opposite party company destructed the myth of renounced company as goodwill of the business by non-providing the service to its consumer. Even contesting the case they never tried to solve the problem or to meet the defect of the refrigerator by replacing the disputed part of the said refrigerator. Rather they tried to evade their responsibility through lame excuse.

From the above observation it is transparent that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 company and its offices are fully responsible for deficiency of service to its consumers. So, this Commission has no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are responsible for non providing the service to its consumer. As such the complaint petition deserved to be allowed with cost and compensation.

Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being no. 44 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party Nos 2 to 4  with a litigation cost of Rs.8000/-.

   The opposite party Nos 2 to 4 are directed to replace the necessary parts of the impugned refrigerator to make it operative like a new one. If they fail to make the Refrigerator operative then the opposite party Nos 2 to 4 are liable to replace the impugned Refrigerator by a new one with same features within 45 days from the date of passing this order.  

          The opposite party no.2 to 4 is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20000/- for harassment to these complainants within the stipulated dates.

At the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite party Nos 2 to 4  shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.