Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 20/05/2010 in consumer complaint No.02/2010 Mrs.Subhalaxmi Ashok Savant-Desai V/s. Bharat Agengies & Ors., passed by District Consumer Forum, Ratnagiri (‘Forum below’ in short). Undisputed facts are that on 28/10/2008 respondent/org. complainant had purchased a refrigerator manufactured by the appellant/org. O.P.No.2/Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. through its Agency/Bharat Agencies at Ratnagiri. According to the complainant, after its purchase she witnessed a complaint about excessive forming of ice which affected the performance of the refrigerator. A complaint was made to the dealer and they attended the complaint and replaced the defective part. However, the complaint continued and therefore, this consumer complaint was filed. Forum below upholding the contention of the complainant directed for replacement of the fridge and to issue fresh warranty card and also granted `2,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical torture. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by org. O.Ps. We heard Mr.R.D. Sulakhe, Advocate for the appellants and Mr.S. Sawant, A.R. of the respondent. Perused the papers. In the instant case, according to the O.Ps., whatever complaint the complainant had, it was duly attended at its service centre namely O.P.No.2/Shriram Agencies and a defective part was also totally replaced. There is no manufacturing defect in the fridge. The alleged complaint of excessive ice forming is due to complainant not following the instructions and regular defrosting the fridge. There is no service deficiency on their part. However, by way of good customer relationship, they showed their willingness to give replacement. However, replacement given was rejected since complainant insisted for a particular colour of the fridge. With this they asked to dismiss the complaint. Except the bare word of complainant, she failed to show that there is any manufacturing defect in the fridge which needs its total replacement. It is an admitted fact that on the first complaint, a defective part was replaced by the O.Ps. O.Ps. blamed the complainant for not following the instructions particularly regular defrosting. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants/O.Ps. that they have out of goodwill and to maintain customer relationship showed their willingness to replace the fridge and accordingly even sent a replacement which was not accepted by the complainant since she insisted for a particular colour of the fridge which was not available at that time. Even at the time of arguments before us, it is submitted that though the Company did not admit any deficiency in service, but to maintain the customer relationship, they are willing to replace the fridge provided the complainant now approach them and from their shop takes a peaceful delivery of replacement of the fridge at her cost since earlier fridge was not accepted by the complainant. Coming to the merit of the case, it would be seen that the complainant failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the fridge which needs any direction against the manufacturing Company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.2/Service Centre since they did their job when the fridge in question was referred to them in the warranty period and they attended the job. Dealer cannot be blamed for deficiency in service on their part since it did not fail to discharge any obligation on its part as a dealer. Thus, the consumer complaint ought to have been dismissed. However, the facts before it were not properly appreciated by the Forum below and thus, arrived at an erroneous conclusion. For the reasons stated above, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20/05/2010 is quashed and set aside. In the result, consumer complaint No.02/2010 stands dismissed. 2. In the given circumstance, there shall be no order as to costs. 3. However, before parting with the appeal, we make observation that the complainant on her own discretion can approach the O.Ps. and collect replacement of the fridge as offered by the appellants, but this would be at the discretion of the complainant to encash the offer made by the appellants/O.Ps. and not under the order of this Commission. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
