Sri N.K.Pattanaik,President.

            A petition U/s. 12 of the C.P.Act has been filed by the complainant, seeking relief to replace the defective refrigerator along with  compensation and  litigation  expenses.

2.         Very briefly  the case of the  complainant is that he has  purchased  one    LG D.D. refrigerator on 8.5.2011  from opp.party No.2 for an amount of Rs. 14,000.00  .It is alleged  that after few days the refrigerator was not  functioning properly in the month of December,2011 within the warranty period , so he contacted opp.party No.2-the service provider but  no result .As per advise of the  opp.aprtyNo.2, the complainant contacted  one Mr. P.K.Das , who sent a  technician on 22.03.2012  to repair  but the technician says it is a defective one. Thereafter the complainant contacted opp.party  No.2, who gave  false assurance to replace the same with a  new one but as yet  nothing was done, for  which  he served a pleader notice  was sent on 04.04.2012  by registered   post  but  no response. Due to the inaction of  the opp.parties  he  has filed the  present  case with prayer to direct the opp.parties to replace the refrigerate with a  new one with compensation and  other reliefs.

3.         Being noticed , the opp.party No.1 entered appearance and filed  written statement and contested the  case.The opp.party stated that the  complaint petition is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to bring the case .While denying  the allegations of the complainant levelled in the  complaint petition, the opp.party stated that the  complainant  has not  lodged the  complaint before the authorized service center to avail warranty services.  It is further stated  the  pleader  notice dt. 04.04.2012  is not within the  knowledge of the  said opp.party  Hence the opp.party  has not  neglected in his duty and the question of  deficiency  in service, unfair trade practice negligence in duty and cheating  does not arise. Hence the opp.party prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.         Notice was served onopp.party No.2  who refused to accept.

5.     After careful consideration  of the pleadings of the  parties purchase  receipts, pleader notice, owner’s manual and all other evidences  on record  the following issues  are involved:-

Issues:-

1.   Whether the complaint   is maintainable ?
2.   Whether the  opp.parties have committed  deficiency in services and unfair trade  practice etc.?
3.   Whether the  complainant is entitled  for any relief ?

Issue No.(i):-            That the  complainant  purchased a  LG DD refrigerator model-GL.254 AM 4 .Sl.No. 86376 on dt., 8.5.2011  against payment of  Rs. 14,000.00 in cash vide money  receipt  sl.No. 160 along with  Owner’s Manual  from opp.party No.1 & 2  is the  service  provider  and manufacture  for his  personal  use and a consumer under opp.party No.1 & 2  the  service  providers as  per the  section -2(d)(i) of the  C.p.Act.Due to  non-function of the refrigerator  properly  to render continuous service in December,2011  within the warranty period, complainant informed the opp. aprties  for repair  is the date of    arise of cause of action and  for the non-attendance of the opp.parties to repair the same  , forced the  complainant to file this case on dt. 14.08.2012  is well within the  limitation period  to try this case. Therefore, the case is maintainable under C.P.Act   along with   proper cause of action and within the  limitation period  as well  within the  jurisdiction of this  forum to adjudicate  this case.

Issue No.(ii) & (iii):-           The issues are the pivotal  issues to determine  the main them  of this  case. That after purchased of the refrigerator on 8.5.2011 it developed  some defects  interrupting  service to be  render to the  complainant within the  warranty period as per Owner’s  Manual , so also it is  primary responsibility of the seller to ensure  proper continuous service to the  complainant within the  warranty period. But  on several intimation by the complainant to the opp.parties for  restore  the normal function of the  refrigerator  was unattended and  instead, opp.party No.2      advised the  complainant   to contact  with some  mechanics who after examining the refrigerator  declared that the  refrigerator  is having  some  manufacturing defect, for which the normalcy  cannot be  restored. On this  context the opp.party No.1 has  nothing to refute or  mentioned in his written version or  written argument. So it is   evident  from the above that admittedly there is a  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on the part of the seller/service provider  deliberately and  negligently  not attending the  grievance of the  complainant immediately amounts  to deficiency of service  and deliberate  harassment by absolving  themselves  from the  required responsibility to be  performed  by them.

For any consumer  when he  buys  a new  product  he is under the  impression that a new  product  bound to be  mechanically perfect or  defect free. A new  product  could not be deficient as well  because the  manufacturer  plant  bound to  produce certain negligible  percentage of defective product and  in case  the  product is defective  a consumer  has a right  of  choice  to seek its  replacement or  refund  of the  price. Though the  burden  to  prove the  defect   on the  consumer yet it  must be understood that  the  consumer is  not  pin point  the  precise nature  of  defects or its cause or source  for which  the  expert ‘s opinion is required. The warranty  which is  given for a product is  a warranty    for  whole of the  product and when it is  found that the  product  does not  perform  properly  the warranty  would be  taken  to have  been breached  and it is  not necessary  for the  consumer to  give  expert  testimony. Under the  circumstances  a consumer  forum has  however  to take into  consideration  , the  consumers state  of mind  as well .    After all a consumer has  invested  on the new  product   for  peace of  mind hoping that the  product is   dependable  and  trouble  free and it is not  so that , the consumer has to take  the new  product  to the workshop time and  again to repair  to carry out. Therefore, this  view has been fortified   by National Commission in case of M/S.Scooter  India Ltd and others. Vrs. Madhabananda Mohanty and others  (2003)reported  in NC and SC consumer cases Part-6^th Page-9056 , where in the  National Commission has  directed the  manufacture  to replace  with a  new  product  or to refund the  cost of the  product with  interest. So it is   apparent from the  above that the opp.aprty No.1 & 2  has  committed deliberate  deficiency in services  to the  consumer with considerable harassment and mental agony, for which the petitioner is entitled for appropriate reliefs which deems fit.

5.         Hence it is ordered that :-

            In view of the above  and in the interest of  justice  the opp.aprty No.2 is  directed to replace  the  refrigerator or refund the cost Rs. 14,000.00 with interest @9% p.a from the date  of  from the date of purchase i.e  on 8.5.2011  to till date of  payment and opp.party No.2 further directed to  pay litigation expenses of Rs. 5000.00 (Rupees Five  Thousand)  to the  petitioner  within one month from the date of receipt of this order.