O R D E R R.Vijayakumar, Member. This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. (2) The grievance of the complaint is that the fridge which the complainant had purchased with a warranty protection period of 7 years, found partly defective within two weeks from the date of purchase and found totally defective on 13th March 2009. As informed, the third opposite party attended the first complaint and said that there is no defect. Within the period of 2009 March, the third opposite party repaired the fridge four times. While repairing, the door of the fridge was collapsed and it was replaced with an unfit one. Even though the complainant informed the matter, the opposite parties had not taken any step to cure the defects properly. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting compensation for financial loss and mental agony sustained by the complainant. The case of second opposite party is that he had prepared to do any service and even to replace any part if required to be replaced free of cost in the least interest of consumer relationship. The compressor only has warranty for seven years. The refrigerator as such has only one year warranty. (3) The case of third opposite party is that the first and second opposite party are bound to comply with the warranty condition. Third opposite party is only a dealer. Immediately on getting information from the complainant, the third opposite party informed the first and second opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service from the part of third opposite party. Hence third opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. The first opposite party has not filed version. The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 examined. Exhibits P1 to P4 marked. From the part of opposite parties OP3 examined as DW1. No evidence adduced by first and second opposite parties. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. 2. Compensation and cost. (4) Points (1) & (2) Admittedly the complainant had purchased a fridge bearing Model No.8124, SL.No.INCO 42707461 and seven years warranty was assured for the compressor. The complaints about the defect in the functioning of compressor were attended by the first opposite party and bills were issued on 06.03.08, 12.02.09 and 11.03.09. The main allegation of the complainant is that the compressor was defective from the beginning itself. Even though the defects were attended by the first opposite party, and the amounts as per bills were paid, the defects were not cured. The amount of third bill was not paid by the complainant. After the replacement of compressor on 11.03.08, from the very next day itself the fridge became completely defective. Even though the matter was informed by the complainant first opposite party was not prepared to attend the complaint. Exhibits P2 shows that Rs.100/- was received by first opposite party as visiting charges to attend the complaint in the fridge. Exhibits P3 and P4 shows that Rs.365/- and Rs.715 were received by the first opposite party as charges connected with replacement of compressor. (5) Opposite party has no case that the compressor of the fridge was not defective and replaced compressor also working properly. As a step to compromise the matter the compressor was again replaced by opposite parties. But they were not prepared to replace door with a fit one. The receipt of unlawful charges for visit and in favour of replacement charges is unfair trade practice and the first opposite party is bound to pay back those amounts. Denial of attending complaint as per complaint dated:12.03.03 without any reasonable cause is also deficiency in service and first opposite party is liable to compensate. On perusal of documents and hearing both sides we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2. The points found accordingly. (6) In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1080/-which was received as replacement and visiting charges and Rs.2000/- for other financial losses. Opposite parties one and two are jointly directed to pay compensation Rs.3000/- for mental agony and Rs.1500/- as cost of proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 30th day of August 2010. K.Vijayakumaran : Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha : Sd/- R.Vijayakumar : Sd/- // Forwarded by Order // Senior Superintendent Date of Filing: 23.03.09. Date of Order: 30.08.2010 (7) INDEX List of witness for complainant PW1 - Mohandas List of documents for complainant P1 - Warranty card P2 - Receipt dated: 28.07.07. P3 - Receipt dated: 06.03.08. P4 - Receipt dated: 20.02.09. List of witness for opposite party DW1 - Murugan | 
