SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT …    The brief history of case is that, the complainant had procured a Samsung Refrigerator, bearing model No.RR2414289YU2/N2OA8V4ZAJ801749 on dated 27.09.2017 from the OP.no.1 for Rs.22,600/-. But after 20 days of its use the refrigerator reported defect like low cooling, ice chamber not working properly, compressor overheat etc. So the complainant approached the OP.1 & 2 being the retailer and service care but the OP.2 suggested the complainant to bring the product to his service care i.e. at Nabarangpur, to which the complainant brought the same to his care on dt.11.11.2017 vide TR no.4249351162 but the OP.2 said that it will take 5 days time. Threafter the complainant again approached the OP.2 over phone and attend the care after 12 days but the OP.2 did not take any steps to repair the same. Hence the complainant again approached the OP.2 personally on 28.11.2017 but the OP.2 further said that it will take more time hence come after fifteen days. The complainant contends that he several times requests the OP.s for its repair but no action yet been taken by OP.s. Hence the complainant harassed due to the deficiency in service by OP.s hence prayed to direct the OP.s to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.15000/- towards harassment and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.         The counsel for OP.No.2 & 3 entered his appearance and filed counter to contend that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant approached this forum not with clean hands. The allegation of inherent manufacturing defect is without supporting or relying any expert report. The contentions of complainant are self explanatory, false & frivolous and the complainant should have put the same with strict proof. The complainant is not a consumer as the instant dispute is not a consumer dispute. He further contends that there is no deficiency in service by these OP.s, so prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

3.         The counsel for OP.2 & 3 & counsel of complainant heard the case at length. The complainant has filed copy of some documents along with her affidavit. The OP.1 neither appeared nor filed his counter in the case, hence he set ex parte and the forum decided to proceed the case basing on documents as available in record on merit. Submissions considered.

4.         It reveals from record that the complainant has procured the refrigerator in question on dt.27.09.2017 and the same reported defect 20 days of its purchase i.e. within full valid warranty period of one year. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s reporting the so called defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced the same with a new one. Perusing the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the set in question purchased by the complainant has inherent manufacturing defect. The service rendered by OP.2 being duty bound is not satisfactory, and the OP.3 is as the principal is liable for the deficiency occurred on the part of its agent. As thus the complainant suffered mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses for the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence under compulsion she craves the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.

5.         From the pros and cons, it is observed that, the OP.2 & 3 challenged intheir counter that the allegation made by complainant on manufacturing defect is without relying any expert report, but from catena of top court decisions held that expert opinion/report is not necessary for every case, so the contention is baseless, hence we found the action of OP.s is against the principles of law of the land and also we found arbitrary and unfair on the part of OP.s which amounts to deficiency in service, as thus the complainant is lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. However as the OP.3 is the manufacturer of the said product, the complaint is allowed against OP.no.3 with costs.           

                                                                           ORDER

1.         The opposite party no.3 above is hereby directed to pay the cost of the refrigerator set Rs.22,600/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand & six hundred only) in place of the so called defective refrigerator, inter alia, to pay Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, the total sum shall carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 31st day of May' 2018.

               MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT,DCDRF,

Memo No___________/DF                Dt…………………

                                                                            PRESIDENT,DCDRF,

                                                                                NABARANGPUR.