ORDER

Per Mrs NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

   On 31/08/2015, the complainant had purchased a Godrej refrigerator from OP2 for a sum of Rs.12,000/-.  It is alleged by the complainant that the refrigerator did not work properly right from the date of installation and makes a loud noise.  The complainant had taken up the matter with the Ops on 10-9-2015, 23-9-2015, 6-10-2015, the service engineer of the OP had visited the complainant but could not remove the defect. The complainant took up the matter with the Ops in the month of September and on 23-9-2015, the compressor of the fridge was replaced. However, the fault still persisted. The complainant again lodged a complaint with the Ops and 6/10/2015 the service engineer of OP changed the relay of the alleged fridge but the fault still persisted.

The complainant approached Ops and requested them to replace the refrigerator, the Ops have did not oblige which led the complaint to approach this forum with present complaint.

OP1 has contested the complaint. It has denied any deficiency in services on its part and has claimed that the complaint has no merit.

Para no.3 of the reply on merits of the written statement filed by OP1 is relevant for the decision of this complaint and is reproduced as under:-

3. That the content of Para No.3 of the complainant is wrong, false and vehemently denied. It is submitted that complainant made only two complaints. It is fur ther submitted that complainant made first complaint on 17.09.2015 vide service order no. 288334, It is fur- ther submitted that expert technician visited and found that the same was functioning well and function of thermostat adjustment was explained with full satisfaction of the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant made second complaint on 26.10.2015 vide service order no. 308661. It is further submitted that second complaint was booked almost one and half month after first complaint. It is further submitted that expert technician visited and found that the same was functioning well without any defect. It is further submitted that expert technician changed the relay with full satisfaction of the complainant. It is further submitted that second complaint were in technical nature.                                                                                                           

       Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

We have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

    A perusal of the complaint filed on record shows that the refrigerator was not  functioning properly from the very beginning. Its compressor was replaced and relay was changed by the service engineer of OP1 , but the defect in the refrigerator could not be removed.

      The OP has admitted in its written statement about two complaints only as well as of the change of relay, and remained silent about the complaint  lodged on 10/09/2015, and of the replacement of its compressor. On the other hand, the complainant in his affidavit has given minute details about the complaints made by him and the service engineers who had visited his place and had attended the complaints.  The complainant has asserted that the compressor of the fridge was replaced by the service engineer namely Mr.   Sareen. The OP has neither examined these engineers nor have filed the job cards vide which service was provided to the complainant.. It appears to us that the fridge supplied to the complainant was having an inherent defect which could not be remedied by the service engineers of the OP. The complainant was therefore justified  to seek the replacement of the fridge specially when its major parts were replaced within /2 months of its purchase. In R. Sachdeva V/s ICICI Bank F.A. 762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held.

 “What is the use of such goods or article if it losses its utility after a period of one month from its purchase. The object of Consumer Protection Act, is to safe guard the interest of the Consumer against the unscrupulous manufacture a trader for selling standard or defective goods.”

In another case title Col. Ravinder Pal Brar v/s Asian Motors FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007, the Hon’ble State Commission held:

The dispute between the Consumer and the service provider and trader should be ended once for all by calling upon the trader and manufacture to refund the cost of goods with adequate compensation as the possibilities of new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the Consumer cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.

        In view of the judgments cited by us above and the facts and circumstances of the case , we are of the considered opinion that OP-1 is guilty of rendering deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act to the complainant and direct it as under:-

 1.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 12,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 23.11.2015 till payment.

2.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him which will include cost of litigation.

3. The OP -1 shall take back the refrigerator from the complainant after making payment of the above mentioned amounts.

The OP-1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. If the OP-1 fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

      Announced in open sitting of the Forum on ___________