The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a chest freezer made by o.p. no.2 from o.p. no.1 on 7.8.10. The said freezer got defective after 21 months from the date of its purchase. The complainant informed the service center of Haier Appliances and the same was repaired by the service centre. But the same freezer got defective again and again. The complainant informed the service centre on 3.5.12 and the service centre returned the freezer on 25.5.12. Complainant alleged that the defect was continued and as the machine is defective the complainant lodged complaints on 15.8.10, 31.8.10, 2.9.10, 7.9.10, 20.9.10, 20.5.12, 3.5.12 and on 31.5.12. Therefore the complainant prayed for Rs.19,000/- as the price of the freezer along with Rs.80,000/- as compensation.

            Though the notice was served upon o.p. no.2, they did not appear before this Forum and as such the matter is fixed ex parte as against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 appeared and filed w/v. In their w/v o.p. no.1 they have stated that o.p. no.1 is just a selling agent of o.p. no.2. Therefore, they have no liability for manufacturing defect, if any. O.p. no.1 is dealer of o.p. no.2 and in the purchase bill the complainant has signed that in any circumstances the dealer will not be liable. Other all allegations are denied by o.p. no.1. Therefore o.p. no.1 prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.

 Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the petition and evidence of the complainant, w/v of o.p. no.1 and all documents filed with complaint petition. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased Haier HCF-345-HT / 305 LTR Deep Freezer by paying Rs.19,000/- from o.p. no.1 on  7.8.10. In the complaint petition complainant has alleged that he made complaints on different dates in 2010. But no document was furnished thereto. The complainant has filed xerox copy of challans with remark ‘repair and return’ dt.12.5.12 and dt.1.6.12. At the time of argument complainant admitted that the freezer is in his custody but the same is defective. The complainant has not filed any expert report which shows that whether the same freezer is defective and which defect is lying with the machine. The complainant has also admitted that the said freezer is used for commercial purpose for his catering business. Nowhere in the complaint it was mentioned that the said business run by the complainant for his livelihood purpose by means of self employment. The complainant purchased another deep fridge of Blue Star Company on 13.5.12. Therefore the complainant has no necessity for his freezer of Haier Company. From the ‘repair and return’ challan we have observed that the freezer in question returned after repairing on 1.6.12 and the complainant received the same without any unsatisfactory remark. Hence the complainant cannot substantiate his case and acdordingly the case fails.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest against o.p. no.1 and ex parte against o.p. no.2 without cost.