ORDER                              Dated:  19.09.2016

    Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.     Complainant filed this complaint on 09-09-2014 and alleged that
on 06-05-2014 he has  purchased  a refrigerator from OP1  vide bill
no. 8203 and has paid Rs 28,500/- for the same. Complainant further
alleged that the refrigerator had a manufacturing defect  and is not
cooling the articles/ food items and despite so many reminders and
personal visits the OPs did not rectified the problem. Hence it is
prayed that OPs be directed to refund the cost of the refrigerator and
pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation.

2.     In reply, OP1 did not deny the purchase of the refrigerator
and denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint. OP1 further
stated that he advised the complainant to approach OP2 who is the
manufacturer and has given the warranty of the product. OP1 clarify
that the complainant purchased the said product for commercial
purpose. OP2 also filed reply and  prayed that the complaint be
dismissed with cost.

3.     In support of his complaint the complainant filed his own
affidavit along with documents. In support of reply OP1 filed
affidavit of Mrs Anju Sharma and OP2 also  filed affidavit of Sh.
Rajeev Ranjan  along with documents. Both the parties filed their
written arguments.

4.     We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by
the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points
to be considered are as under:-

(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

( c) Relief?



5.     Admittedly, the complainant has purchased a refrigerator of OP2
sold by OP1 vide bill no. 8203 dated 6.5.2014. Bill dated 06.05.2014
clarify that it was purchased for Rs. 28,500/-.  Hence, complainant is
a consumer.



6.     The complainant in his complainant has filed his affidavit
alleged and imposed that the refrigerator had a manufacturing defect
and is not working from day one of its purchase but complainant did
not depose nor allege in his complaint that when he had made complaint
for the manufacturing defect and working of the refrigerator.   On the
contrary OPs filed affidavit of  Rajeev Rajan and specifically depose
that company did not received any complaint from the complainant
regarding averments made in the complaint. OP1 also affidavit of Anju
Sharma has clarify that on the report dated 09.5.2015 by the
complainant which was attended and chest cooler was working OK. This
report is send by the complainant himself. Document Ex. OPA  also
verify the facts alleged in the affidavit of Anju Sharma.  Service
Report Ex OPA is duly sent by the complainant himself.  It is
pertinent to mention herein that the complainant filed reminder cum
legal notice given by him to the OP1 Ex. C1 on 02.08.2014 which
clarify that complainant has complained that he needs a refrigerator
for storing milk for which  he has purchased a chest cooler  (Voltas)
which was not suitable to him. All these above mentioned facts clarify
that the refrigerator purchased by the complainant has not any
manufacturing defect nor was it non-functional from day one.
Therefore, complainant failed to prove the deficiency on the part of
OPs.



7.     Looking to the above facts and circumstances, deficiency on the
part of the OPs is not proved and the complaint is dismissed
accordingly. Both the parties will bear their own cost. File be
consigned to record room.



Announced on ………………..