Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

           This  is   a complaint  U/s. 35 of C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The  case  of the  complaint is that he has purchased  one  Samsung Refrigerator  from the opp.party No.1 on  25.04.2016  for  his  domestic use   on payment of  Rs. 87,300.00 .The opp.partyNo.3  is the manufacturer   company  of the  fridge  , who  had   given 12 months  of warranty on the Refrigerator and  120  months  of  warranty on the  compressor. The opp.party No.2  is the  authorised  service  centre appointed  by opp.party No.3 to provide service  after sales  of  Samsung  products  to the customers. On 27.02.2021  the  Refrigerator  of the  complainant   failed to  cool for  which  on 02.03.2021  the  complainant  intimated the opp.party No.1  about the same. The opp.party No.1 advised the complainant  to register  the  complaint  with opp.party No.2  in  toll free  number  and   accordingly the  complainant  lodged  his  complaint  with opp.party No.2 on the same day i.e  on 02.03.2021. The  technician of the opp.parties  checked the  Refrigerator on 06.03.2021  at   the  house of  the   complainant   but  failed to repair  the same. He  asked  to   carry the Refrigerator to the  workshop of the opp.parties situated at Angul Town and accordingly  it  was taken to the  service centre  of opp.party No.2 on 09.03.2021 . For  such  transportation the  complainant has  spent  Rs. 1,000.00 . The engineer of the opp.parties  tried  to repair the Refrigerator at the  service  centre of opp.party No.2 but  failed. The opp.party No.2  informed the  complainant that   it  cannot be  repaired  as   the  necessary spare prats  are not  available with  him and opp.party No.3. The opp.party No.2  issued  a job card to the complainant. The  complainant  and  his family members suffered  a lot in    want of the  Refrigerator . In absence of the same it is  difficult  on the part of the  family members of the  complainant to   store  medicine, fruits, vegetables, milk products, food stuffs etc. and  the  complainant  is  not  able to  purchase  another  Refrigerator. Inspite of  several requests  to the opp.parties  the  defective  Refrigerator   was  not  repaired by the opp.parties. On the other hand  the opp.party No.2  threatened  the complainant  to  throw  his  Refrigerator from his  work shop , if  it is  not  removed by the  complainant  immediately. On 28.06.2021  the  complainant has  sent a pleader notice to the opp.parties for  necessary repair , in alternative  to replace   the  Refrigerator by supplying  a defect free one of the  same model. On  05.07.2021  the opp.party No.1  sent  reply to the  pleader notice. He  denied   his liability. On 29.07.2021  the opp.party No.3  submitted his  reply which related  to a different  product. He also  denied  to  comply the  demand made by the complainant  in  his   pleader notice. Hence the  complaint.

3.       Notices were issued to all the opp.parties  through Regd. Post with A.D and  duly served on them ,as  it  appears  from the  documents   available  on the case   record and   the  order sheet dtd. 10.11.2021. No written statement  has been filed by the  opp.parties in time. However on 23.11.2022 a written statement/evidence  has been filed on behalf  of opp.party No.3. The  said  so called written version/evidence  is  not  supported with affidavit and not within time . So the  so called written version filed by the opp.party No.3 on 23.11.2022 is  not  acceptable, which has  been reflected in  order  sheet passed by this  Commission  on 23.11.2022.

4.        The  complainant  has  filed  his  affidavit  evidence  before this Commission  on 20.12.2021  when the  case has been posted for  argument.

         Admittedly  on 25.04.2016  the complainant has  purchased  one  Refrigerator  from the  shop of opp.party No.1  and the product is  of  opp.party No.3 .Annexure-1  is the  purchase memo which  showes that one  Refrigerator has been purchased  from opp.party No.1 on 25.04.2016  by the  complaint on payment  of  consideration of Rs. 87,300.00 . Annexure- 2  is   the  warranty card. On perusal of  warranty card it  appears that  there is   warranty for   60  months  on compressor  and  120-  months  on digital  inverter   compressor  of  Refrigerator. It is also  admitted that the  Refrigerator  purchased by the  complainant failed to cool on 27.02.2021  which was  duly informed  to opp.party No.1 & 2 by the  complainant . So it  is  clear that there was  warranty  on the compressor  of the  Refrigerator  for  60 months. The defect in cooling  in the Refrigerator occurred on 27.02.2021 which   is  within the warranty period. Annexure- 3  is  the  acknowledgement of  service  request issued by the  opp.party No.2,the  service  centre of opp.party No.3 On  perusal of Annexure-3 it  appears that  request was made  for repairing   by the  complainant on 09.03.2021 and the  appointment date was  11.03.2021. It  further  transpires  from   Annexure-3  that the engineer  of opp.party No.2, found   internal leakage  in the  Refrigerator which is  not repairable. Annexure-4 and Annexure-7  are the  copies of the  pleader notices issued to all the opp.parties by the complaiannt. Annexure- 5 & 8  are   reply  of the   opp.party No.1  to the  pleader  notice  received. .Annexure-6 is  the copy of  reply of opp.partyNo.3  to the pleader notice  issued by the  complainant. From the materials  on record  it is  clear that the  Refrigerator  became defective  within the  warranty period  which is  not  repairable  . Admittedly  the  complainant has not  examined  any witness to prove that the  fridge  purchased  by  him was  with manufacturing  defect. From the  materials on record  and  Annexure-3  it is  clear that there was internal  leakage in the Refrigerator which is  not repairable. It  amounts to  manufacturing defect. If  a product  of  such high value is  not repairable  within the  warranty period it  will be  a great loss to the complainant. Once the Refrigerator is sold  by the   opp.party No.3, he is bound  to repair the same within the  warranty  period   but in this case the opp.partyNo.3  failed to provide the service to the  complainant. On the  other  hand when the  pleader notice  issued by the  complainant (Exhibit 4 & 7 )  relates to  Refrigerator  , the reply of opp.party No.3 vide Annexure- 6  relates  to a  washing machine. The said reply  does not   relates to the  Refrigerator .It shows that  opp.party No.3 has   casually submitted his  reply  to the  pleader notice   issued to him .He is  gross  negligent  in  sending  said  reply  of the pleader notice.  It  further  shows that the  opp.party No.3  has not  verified   the relevant documents   relating to the  Refrigerator purchased  by the complainant while  submitting his  reply  (Annexure-6). There is  gross deficiency in service by the opp.party No.3.

5.       Admittedly the  complainant has  purchased the  Refrigerator on payment of Rs. 87,300.00 and   used the same   near about   five years. It is also  true  that the  complainant   and  his  family  members are  subjected to  mental agony and harassment without Refrigerator. The opp.party No.3  has also adopted   unfair trade practice  by  not  complying the defect  arose  in the Refrigerator .

6.       Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

          The case be and the  same  is  allowed in part  on contest  against opp.party No.1 & 3 and  exparte against  opp.party No.2.The  opp.party No.3   is  directed to pay an  amount of  Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand ) only towards cost  of the five years old  Refrigerator and Rs. 40,000.00 (Rupees Forty Thousand) only  towards compensation    .The opp.party No.3  is  further  directed to  pay Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) only   towards  cost of  litigation .The  opp.party No.3  will   pay the  aforesaid  amounts  within one  month from the date of receipt of this  order, failing  which  the awarded amount will carry penal interest @ 15%  p.a till it is paid to the complainant.