In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 257 / 2009 1) Mr. Sanjay Bhatra, 195, N.S.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700103. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 1, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-71. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member Order No. 6 Dated 2 7 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 . Complainant Sanjay Bhatra by filing a petitions of complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 on 14.7.09 has prayed for issuing direction upon the o.p. to replace the defective fridge sold to him with a new one or to pay the price money of the fridge and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation or any other order as the forum may deem and proper. Main grievance of the complainant is that on 5.11.07 he purchased a fridge manufactured by o.p. bearing model no.295 EMG/TMG 4 of 280 ltrs from Sales Emporium, Garia at 16,500/-. But immediately after installation it was found defective in the vegetable box. Complainant made several complaints with the dealer as well as service centre, but the defect could not be cured and ultimately, the fridge was replaced by service centre on 28.5.08 with a different model, but the same defect was repeatedly found and the complainant sent a written complaint on 30.7.08 and requested the o.p. to replace the fridge in replacement with the fridge of the original model. Again defect was found in the replaced fridge particularly, in the cooling of the vegetable box and finding no other alternative on service of lawyer’s notice complainant has filed this case against the o.p. with the aforesaid prayer. Decision with reasons : It appears on perusal of the record that even in spite of the notice o.p. did not appear nor they filed their w/v, as a result, the case is heard ex parte. It appears on perusal of the receipt granted by Sales Emporium, Garia that on 5.11.07 complainant purchased the fridge at Rs.14,500/-. It is not understood how the amount is written in the lawyer’s letter and in his evidence on oath as Rs.16,500/-. The old fridge was replaced on 28.5.08. We have also perused his complaint about the defect of the fridge which was reflected through his letter dt.30.7.08. We have also perused the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the complainant and the lawyer’s letter. His grievances viz. the defect of the fridge in the cooling box both in the original fridge and the replaced fridge of different model is corroborative in nature. The fridge was replaced on 28.5.08 which is evident from delivery challan. In his letter of complaint dt.30.7.08 he has also categorically stated that the new fridge given to him is not also up to the mark and the complaint of vegetable box remains and there he also stated that he wants original model of fridge which he had purchased from the o.p. There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. When the same nature of defect is found in the original model and also in the replaced model in that even we think it wise that instead of further replacement of the fridge the refund of money may set the problem at rest. Having due regard to the circumstances, the following order is passed. Hence, Ordered, That the petition of complaint is allowed ex parte. O.p. is directed to refund Rs.14,500/- (Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only positively within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_____ ______Sd-______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
