Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member):

                   The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a 285 litre (LG GLD 4 Star) refrigerator for Rs.31,500/- from 2^nd opposite party on 15.08.2016 (after adjusting the value of the old refrigerator) which is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The warranty offered by the company for refrigerator is for one year and 9 years for the compressor.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the refrigerator.  The 2^nd opposite party is the authorised dealer.  On the same day it was installed in the house by the authorised dealer.  The complainant purchased the refrigerator for his personal use, as well as to keep the medicine and insulin.  The complainant’s wife is a diabetic patient who has been taking insulin for her disease.  The newly purchased refrigerator showed complaints within three months from the date of purchase.  It was not properly working since no icing and fogging developed in the freezer.  The matter was intimated to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party’s technician came and checked the refrigerator and told that he is not the competent person to rectify the defect of the refrigerator because it covers warranty.  Thereafter, the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party and registered a complaint.  On 04.10.2016 the technician came and checked the same.  He observed that, the shortage of gas in the refrigerator resulted the malfunctioning of the refrigerator.  He filled the gas in the refrigerator and said that the defects were cured.  Even then the said refrigerator showed complaints.  Thereafter, the refrigerator was repaired by the 1^st opposite party’s technician on several occasions.  Even though the refrigerator repaired so many times it was not working properly.  On 08.10.2016, the technician came and took the refrigerator to their service centre, Thiruvalla and returned the same on 24.10.2016 claiming that the defects were cured and also collected Rs.3,000/- for transporting charge without giving any receipts.  Even after all the repairs also, the refrigerator was not working properly and at last it was totally damaged beyond use and repairs.  Consequent to the complaint to the 1^st opposite party’s authorised person who is working as the area manager of Kottayam Region named Abhilash assured the complainant to replace the refrigerator with extended warranty.  But so far they have not replaced the refrigerator in spite of the assurance of the 1^st opposite party’s area manager.  The defect of the refrigerator was not rectified.  According to the complainant, the defects of the refrigerator is due to low manufacturing quality and hence opposite parties are liable to replace the refrigerator.  The complainant had sustained huge loss due to the non-supply of the new refrigerator.  The main purpose for purchasing the refrigerator was to keep the medicine and insulin.  The medicines and insulin were kept in the neighbour’s fridge when it became damage.  The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one of the same brand or in the alternative (the complainant may be allowed to realise the whole amount paid by the complainant for purchasing the refrigerator) direct them to return its price of Rs.31,500/- with 18% interest along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and transporting charge of Rs.3,000/- and cost of this proceedings.

                   3. In this case, opposite party 1 and 2 are exparte.

                   4. On the basis of the allegation of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether the complaint can be allowed or not.

                   5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4.  After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.

                   6. The Point:-  The complainant’s allegation is that the refrigerator which he purchased from the 2^nd opposite party (authorised dealer) was totally destroyed due to its manufacturing defects and other complaints.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the refrigerator.  The 1^st opposite party’s authorised technician repaired the refrigerator on several occasion but it was not repaired properly.  Moreover, they were collected the transporting charges Rs.3,000/- from the  complainant even though the said complaints and repairs were within the warranty period.  At last, on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, the 1^st opposite party’s area manager assured to replace the refrigerator.  But they have not replaced the complainant’s damaged refrigerator in spite of their assurance.  The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.

                   7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as E$xts.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the original cash bill dated 15.08.2016 for Rs.31,500/- issued by the 2^nd opposite party in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the retail invoice No.15-200925 dated 15.08.2016.  Ext.A3 is the owner’s manual and warranty of the refrigerator of the 1^st opposite party issued by the 2^nd opposite party at the time of selling the refrigerator.  Ext.A4 is the customer copy of the work order No.474 form.

                   8. On the basis of the allegations of the complainant, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator manufactured by 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party.  The said refrigerator was repaired by the 1^st opposite party’s technicians on several occasions and collects the transporting charges ignoring the warranty benefits, which is eligible to the complainant.  According to the complainant, even after repairs, the refrigerator was not working and now it is beyond use and out of repairs.  Further, the 1^st opposite party’s (area manager) technician’s had not replaced the fridge in spite of the assurance given by them.  When we evaluate the evidence adduced by PW1 it is to see that opposite aprty 2 has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the complainant.  Hence opposite party 2 can be exonerated from all charges.

                   9. Since the opposite parties are exparte and there is no reason to disbelieve the allegation of the complainant, the complainant’s allegation stands proved against 1^st opposite party as unchallenged.  Therefore, we find that the above said acts of the 1^st opposite party are clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence, we find that this complaint is allowable against the 1^st opposite party.

                   10. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby the 1^st opposite party is directed to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one of the same brand along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the cost of the refrigerator Rs.31,500/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand five hundred only) and the compensation and cost ordered herein above from the opposite parties with 10% interest from the date of order onwards. 

                    Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2017.

                                                                                                 (Sd)-

                                                                                   Sheela Jacob,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                (Member)

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)     :  (Sd)-

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : A. John Mathai

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Original cash bill dated 15.08.2016 for Rs.31,500/- issued by

        the 2^nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. 

A2 :  Retail invoice No.15-200925 dated 15.08.2016. 

A3 :  Owner’s manual and warranty of the refrigerator.

A4 :  Customer copy of the work order No.474 form.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:  Nil

                                                                                      (By Order)

Copy to:- (1)  A. John Mathai, Adappanamkandathil House,

                   Kadapra.P.O., Kumbanad, Pathanamthitta Dist.

    (2)  LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A Wing (3^rd Floor),

          D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017.

    (3)  The Proprietor, Vijaya Home Appliances,

          MGM Towers, Thekkemala.P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist. 

    (4)  The Stock File.