SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: Complainant Chinmay Rourtray has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased a Whirlpool refrigerator from O.P.No.1, the authorised dealer vide Bill No.1884 dated.22.10.2011 at a cost of Rs.19,100/-. The model name of the refrigerator is Proton, Model No.13126 and Sl.No.INA113702352. O.P. No.2 is the manufacturer of the product. The product caries warranty period of 5 (4+1) years.
    2. Allegation of the complainant is that the said refrigerator was mal-functioning in the year 2014, which was intimated by the complainant to the O.P.No.1, who repaired the same and took service charge of Rs.945/- vide Customer Code No.15846 dt.19.5.2014. Despite repair, the refrigerator was mal-functioning and was not functioning to the optimum capacity. At last on 12.3.2015 the refrigerator went dead. This was intimated by the complainant to O.P.No.1, but the problem was not rectified.                                        
    3. Complainant assessed that the refrigerator has inherent defects as it was not functioning properly since the date of its purchase. Though the refrigerator went dead within the warranty period, the O.Ps failed to rectify the defects and repair the same to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant ran to the O.P.No.1 several times and requested to depute their service engineer to attend to the refrigerator and rectify the defect. But the O.Ps did not listen to his request and remained silent and took no action for repairing the dead refrigerator and rectifying the defects.
    4. Complainant further alleges that he genuinely believes that the refrigerator is having inherent manufacturing defect and only repair of the same will not serve the purpose. So, it should be replaced with a new one. On the basis of the above, the complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.Ps to replace the dead refrigerator with a new one or to refund the purchase price of the refrigerator, pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment along with cost of the proceeding. 
    In order to support his case, complainant has filed Xerox copies of Bill No.1884 dt.22.10.2011 for Rs.19,100/- issued by O.P.No.1 showing sell of the refrigerator and Service request sheet dt.29.5.2014  issued by the O.P.No.1 showing realization of Rs.945/- towards repair cost of the refrigerator and warrant card issued by the O.P.No.1.
    5. O.Ps were duly noticed by this Forum. But in spite of receipt of notice, O.Ps failed to appear and contest the proceeding. Hence O.P.No.1 was set ex-parte on 3.7.2015 and O.P.No.2 was set ex-parte on 16.9.2015 and case was posted for ex-parte hearing. 
    6. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the complaint petition and documents filed there with. Since the O.Ps did not participate in the proceeding, it is genuinely believed by us that there is nothing to controvert the allegations of the complainant. As such on scrutiny of the available documents and submissions on behalf of the complainant, we believe the allegations to be true. 
    7. Complainant went to the O.P.No.1 several times and approached for repair of the dead refrigerator, but the O.P.No.1 did not listen to his request and failed to repair the refrigerator within the warranty period which must have  caused much loss and suffering to the complainant. In the present modern days of living refrigerator has become a necessity for all house hold requirements and it is no more a luxury. As per the allegation of the complainant the refrigerator has gone dead since 12.3.2015 and the O.Ps failed to attend to the complaint of the petitioner and took no steps to rectify the defects. Finding no other alternative, complainant approached this Forum by filing the present case praying for redressal of his grievance. 
    8. The O.Ps neither attended to the complaint of the complainant nor appeared before this Forum even after receipt of notice in this case. In absence of any counter from the side of the O.Ps, we accept the allegation of the complainant that he has been harassed by the O.Ps for not attending the defective refrigerator. As per brochure issued by O.P.No.1 the refrigerator is of latest quality and service     of O.P.No.2 is of world class. But in reality, the service by the O.Ps is awfully poor and O.Ps have failed to provide proper service to the complainant for rectifying the problems found in the refrigerator in spite of all best efforts of the complainant. So, we feel that there is clear deficiency in serviced as well as unfair trade practice perpetrated by the O.Ps which has caused loss and suffering to the complainant. We also accept the allegation of the complainant that the refrigerator sold to the complainant is having inherent manufacturing defects, which required to be replaced with a new one. 
    9. Taking in to consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we allow the case of the complainant against the O.Ps on ex-parte and hold the O.Ps jointly and severally liable. Accordingly, O.Ps are directed to replace the defective refrigerator sold to the complainant with a new one of the same model and description or refund the purchase price and take back the defective refrigerator from the house of the complainant at their cost. O.Ps are further directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. O.Ps are to comply with this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the awarded compensation amount will carry interest @ 9(Nine) per cent per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.