1. The case of complainant is that he purchased a Samsung refrigerator from the shop of O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. RR19J20A3RH and serial no. IG4ZAH3039035M and paid Rs. 12,000/- vide retail invoice no. 1220 dated 15.05.2016 alongwith a warranty certificate and 8 months after its purchase, the refrigerator gave some inherent peculiar sound and other defects.Further the allegations of complainant is that on approach to the O.P.No.1, who sent his mechanic twice for its repair and finally he disclosed that the compressor of the alleged refrigerator is damaged and needs its replacement and on approaches to the O.P.No.2 who did not responded the complainant, thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, he filed this case with a pray to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the refrigerator and Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. After receiving the notice from the Fora, the O.P. No. 1 did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed his written version nor participated in the hearing, as such hearing was proceeded exparte against the O.P. No. 1.
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 represented through their authorized representative who appeared in this case, filed their counter denying their liabilities with the contentions that since the complainant has not filed any expert opinion report in respect of the defects occurred in the alleged refrigerator, as such there is no deficiency in service on their part.  Further they have contended that the alleged products was purchased by the complainant after being satisfied with its performances, which was put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before being cleared for despatch to the market, and also they have contended the complainant has not produced any technical report from any expert or any report from a notified laboratory to prove his allegations emphasizing the provisions u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act, and with other contentions they have prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents like retail invoice vide no. 1220 dated 15.05.2016 issued by O.P.No. 1 to prove his allegations regarding defects in the alleged handset.  On the other hand, the O.Ps have not filed any single documents in support of their contentions, rather non appearance and non participation of O.P. No. 1 in the present proceeding makes allegations of Complainant vital and strong.
    
5. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Samsung refrigerator from the shop of O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. RR19J20A3RH and serial no. IG4ZAH3039035M and paid Rs. 12,000/- vide retail invoice no. 1220 dated 15.05.2016 alongwith a warranty certificate.  The allegations of Complainant is that 8 months after its purchase, the refrigerator gave some inherent peculiar sound and other defects and on approach to the O.P.No.1, he sent his mechanic twice for its repair and finally he disclosed that the compressor of the alleged refrigerator is damaged and needs to be replaced , and approaches made to O.P.No.2 got in veined and the said versions of Complainant have never been challenged by the O.Ps.  Further it is seen from the records that the Complainant has admitted in his petition that in regard to the defects occurred in the alleged refrigerator, the O.P. No. 1 has sent his mechanic twice for its repair, as such we think that the O.P.No.1 has rendered proper service to the Complainant on his part.  However, it is seen from the record and as per the version of Complainant it is noticed that inspite of the best efforts made by the mechanic, the defects of the refrigerator could not rectified and the said version of the Complainant has never been challenged by any opposite parties.  Hence, in our view the versions of Complainant cannot be disbelieved.
    
6. Further as per versions of Complainant it is also noticed that the defect which occurred in the allege refrigerator is only regarding the compressor, which is a vital and important part of a fridge, without which the fridge cannot be functioned properly.Further it is ascertained from the submissions of the parties present before us that without proper function of compressor each and every system of the fridge will be useless.As such we think, since the compressor is still under warranty and without which the alleged refrigerator became useless, is needs to be replaced and since the alleged refrigerator is under warranty and is totally defunct since year back i.e. the day of its first defects found out, as such in our view, replacement of the refrigerator will the only solution to meet the ends of justice.
    
7. Hence, on the basis of the submissions made by the parties to the present disputes and considering the above discussions, we feel the Complainant deserves to be compensated as he has suffered due mental agony and physical harassment for the alleged refrigerator, for which the Complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses, as such he deserves for compensation and costs.  Considering his suffering we feel a sum of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice. 

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged refrigerator is herewith directed to replace the alleged refrigerator with a new one and to pay Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of this order.  Further the Complainant is directed to return the alleged defective refrigerator to the concerned person of the O.P.No. 2 at the time of complying the above order by the O.P. No. 2.

               Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of March, 2018.

             Issue free copies to the parties concerned.