PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1051 of 2011 A. Antony Muthu Vs. M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd. & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased Whirlpool refrigerator model No. 10865 Elite AS 220 liters, in code No. 081205, Serial No. INAO 84903830 for a sum of Rs.15,500/- on 17.7.2009 from OP No. 3/Respondent No. 3 manufactured by OP No. 1 & 2/Respondent No. 1 & 2. On the date of delivery itself, complainant suspected that an old fridge has been delivered, made complaint to OP No. 2 & 3. On his complaint, OP No. 2 visited his premises and subsequently service engineer also visited his premises and replied that date of manufacture could not be traced. Not mentioning date of manufacture on the refrigerator amounts to unfair trade practice. Inspite of repeated reminders, refrigerator was not replaced by new one. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 & 2 contested complaint and submitted that delivered refrigerator was a new one and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. None appeared for Respondent No. 3 even after service; hence, he was proceeded ex-parte. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent agreed to replace new refrigerator before State Commission, which reveals that delivered refrigerator was old one. Refrigerator does not contain manufacturing date and year which amounts to unfair trade practice; even then, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent never offered to replace new refrigerator before State Commission and order passed by leaned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. Perusal of record reveals that there is no grievance of complainant regarding service of purchased refrigerator, but the only grievance is that refrigerator may be old as it does not contain year of manufacturing, which amounts to unfair trade practice. It is not disputed that carton in which refrigerator was delivered contains May, 2009 as month and year of manufacture. Merely because refrigerator itself does not contain month and year of manufacture, it cannot be inferred that delivered refrigerator was old and manufactured in the year 2006, which amounted to unfair trade practice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any document in support of his contention that refrigerator purchased by him was manufactured by respondent in the year 2006. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that sold refrigerator was manufactured earlier to the year 2009, merely by selling that refrigerator in 2009, would not amount to unfair trade practice unless it is proved that refrigerator manufactured in year 2006 was sold in year 2009 revealing that it was manufacturing in year 2009. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place before us any rule making obligatory on the part of respondent to inscribe month and year of manufacture on the refrigerator. 7. Learned State Commission in the impugned order observed that Counsel for the respondent offered to replace the refrigerator, but Counsel for the appellant not only declined the offer, but demanded Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to replacement of refrigerator for withdrawal of complaint. Prima facie, we do not dispute this observation, but learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that offer for new refrigerator was never made before State Commission, but it was submitted that if there is any defect in the refrigerator, it can be rectified. 8. Learned State Commission held that refrigerator supplied was a new one and dismissed appeal. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.