O R D E R <br /> <br /> Lekhamma, Member<br /> The complainant purchased an Electrolux Oxy JNSTA Refrigerator for and on behalf of his daughter on 16-10-2007 at the price of Rs. 6,750/- from the opposite party. The machine having developed defects after one month, was rectified in the service centre. After two months the same complaint resurfaced. This was intimated to the opposite party several times but of no avail. The defect is not rectified till date. Aggrieved by the adamant attitude of opposite party, this complaint is filed. The relief sought is the refund of the price and compensation. <br /> <br /> 2. Complainant appeared in person and adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. We have heard the complainant. The opposite party abstained from appearing before the Forum in spite of the receipt of notice.<br /> <br /> 3. Points that arise for consideration are the following:<br /> i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the Fridge in question replaced or in the alternative refund of the price?<br /> ii. Compensation and cost?<br /> <br /> 4. Point No. i. The complainant in this dispute is the beneficiary. Ext. A1 is the bill issued by the opposite party to complainant’s daughter. Ext. A2 is the warranty card of the defective article in question. Those are the only documentary evidence on record pertaining to the transaction. The Fridge in question carried a warranty for 12 months and for an additional period of 48 months for compressor. As per the testimony of the complainant defects were found during the warranty period. Moreover, same problem reappeared even after repairment of the machine. Even though, it was intimated to the opposite party, opposite party declined to respond positively. One need not disbelieve it particularly when it is not rebutted. Opposite party has not cared to appear before the Forum despite the receipt of notice. It is one of the duties of an authorized dealer is to ensure the effective and efficient working of goods sold especially with contractual warranty. The opposite party ought to have either rectified it or contacted the manufacturer. It is seen that the manufacturer is not arrayed as opposite party. . Anyhow that does not affect the privity of contract between the customer and the dealer. The omission of opposite party constitutes deficiency in service. Defects noted in goods during the warranty period in several occasions leads one to the presumption that the goods suffer from manufacturing defects. Hence we are constrained to hold that complainant is entitled for replacement of refrigerator under dispute.<br /> 5. We found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Even then in the facts and circumstances of the case we are not ordering compensation for reasons stated above. But adamant attitude taken by the opposite party that has forced the complainant to file this complaint. Hence opposite party should pay litigation cost to the complainant. <br /> Accordingly we allow the complaint and direct that <br /> i. The opposite party shall replace the Refrigerator in question with new one of the same price, brand and kind with fresh warranty at the expense of opposite party or in the alternative opposite party shall refund to the complainant the price of Rs. 6,750/- with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realization and in the latter case, complainant shall return the Fridge in question and transportation, charges shall be borne by the opposite party to baring the same to the opposite party’s shop.<br /> ii. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 500/- as cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied with in a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of July 2008.<br />