1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator of Samsung Company from OP.1 vide Bill No.2287 dt.30.01.2013 for Rs.11, 400/- and after one year of purchase due to inner PDP opened and leakage of water inside the chamber, he approached the OP.2 (ASC) of the Company.  The technician of ASC opined that the said defect is not repairable and hence the complainant approached the OP.1 for replacement of the refrigerator with a new one but in vain.  Thus alleging defect in goods and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.11, 400/- towards cost of refrigerator and Rs.38, 600/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner.  The Ops 2 & 3 filed counter through their A/R denying the allegations but admitted that the refrigerator purchased by the complainant on 30.1.2013 from OP.1 bearing warranty for 12 months besides 60 months warranty for Compressor.  The Ops contended that the OP.2 visited the house of the complainant vide job sheet No.4167338445 dt.21.1.2014 for the defect in the cooling system and repaired the same on 22.1.2014.  It is further contended that the complainant lodged complaint for water leakage inside the chamber and the OP.2 visited the house of the complainant vide job sheet dt.13.2.2016 and observed that inner PDP was cracked due to pressure caused for misuse and it was not repairable and the refrigerator was also not under warranty and the OP.2 advised the complainant to repair the refrigerator under 3^rd party.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, purchase of alleged refrigerator by the complainant on 30.1.2013 from OP.1 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that due to defect in inner PDP, water was leaking inside the chamber after one year from the date of purchase and on approach; the OP.2 (ASC) attended the unit and opined that the defect is not reparable.

5.                     The Ops in their counter stated that on a call from the complainant, they attended the unit on 21.1.2014 for cooling problem and after necessary repairs; they handed over the unit to the complainant on 22.1.2014.  Further on approach of the complainant, they attended the unit on 13.2.2016 for the defect regarding water leakage inside the refrigerator.  The technician noticed that the inner PDP is cracked for the pressure due to misuse and the defect was not reparable.  Hence the ASC advised the complainant to make the same repaired through a 3^rd party.

6.                     It is noticed from the service job sheet issued by the OP.2 on 13.2.2016 that due to inner PDP opened, the water is leaking inside the chamber which is not repairable and it was a out of warranty case.  Further the Ops stated that due to misuse of the unit, the said defect arose.  Where out of warranty repair of a particular unit is beyond the control of an ASC, it cannot be said that the ASC committed any deficiency in service.  In other words, it can be repaired elsewhere.

7.                     In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)