ORDER

V. K. DABAS, MEMBER

                On 8.4. 2015, the complainant had purchased a Samsung
refrigerator from (OP1) for a sum of Rs. 21,800/-. OP2 is the
manufacturer of the  same. It is alleged by the complainant that the
refrigerator was not functioning properly since beginning as it was
unable to freeze water to form ice, even after  30 hours.  It is
alleged by the complainant that in response  to a complaint made by
her with the customer care of OP2, a technician from OP2 company had
visited her place  on 27.4.2015 and had repaired the refrigerator.
He had  assured the complainant that the defect in the refrigerator
had been rectified and it will  now work  properly.   It is alleged by
the complainant that she had  made another complaint to  the Customer
Care of OP2 on 23.5.2015 wherffater a service engineer from OP2
company had again visited her place  and had tried to rectify the
defect.   The technician had  opened the freezer portion by cutting
some pieces of the refrigerator and thereafter could not reassemble
them in the original position  . As a result of this, ice started
depositing on the back side of the refrigerator and the pipe on the
back side (suction tube)  started throwing ice and water. She had
again made a complaint  with OP2 and a technician of OP2 had again
visited her place  on 27.5.2015 to rectify the defect but to no avail.
it is further alleged that the complainant again complained  to the OP
through e-mail on 2.7.2015 and the technician of OP2 again visited her
place to rectify the defect on 17.7.2015 and 22.7.2015. It is alleged
that he wanted to cut the pipe and refill the gas.  It is alleged by
the complainant that she had purchased a new refrigerator as the old
one had developed the same defect.  She had, therefore,  requested the
Ops to replace the refrigerator. Her request  was , however, denied by
the OP2 company. She had,  therefore , approached this forum for
redressal of her grievances.

Both op1 and op2 have contested the complaint and have filed separated
written statements.    In its  written statement OP1 has submitted
that the complainant was given a brand new and sealed Samsung
refrigerator .  It is further stated that the complainant had
registered complaints only with OP2 as it is the manufacturer and
principal service provider.  It is stated by OP1 that there is no
cause of action against it and has prayed that the complaint against
it be dismissed.

    In its written statement filed by  OP2  it has denied all the
averments made by the complainant and has stated that the complaint
has been filed with pure greed and nefarious intentions.  It has
admitted that the complainant had purchased the Samsung refrigetor for
a sum of Rs. 21,800/- on 8.4.2015 from OP1. It has stated that it had
never given any assurance to replace the refrigetor. It has also
stated that it had sent its service engineers to repair the
refrigerator and had taken the best possible methods to resolve the
issue  with the complainant. It has claimed that the complainant had
adamantly demanded refund or replacement of the refrigerator . It has
claimed that the refrigerator is working fine and there is no cause of
action for filing the present complaint.  It has prayed that the
complaint be dismissed.

               In the evidence, the complainant has reiterated the
contents of the complaint by way of affidavit and has  put on record
copy of the invoice showing the purchase of the refrigerator from OP1
and copies of the complaints made to the Ops. The Ops have also
corroborated the contents of their written statements in their
evidence filed  by way of affidavits.

                We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have
perused the record.

              It is the case of the complainant that the refrigerator
had started giving problem soon after its purchase as it did not
freeze water into ice.   It is also  the case of the complainant that
she had made complaints  to OP2 on 27.4.2015 to rectify the defect in
the refrigerator.  Even though  a service engineer of OP2 had visited
and had repaired the refrigerator , the same did not work
satisfactorily.  The complainant, therefore, again registered
complaint with the customer care of OP2 on 23.5.2015 . Another service
engineer  visited  her place but was unable to identify the defect .
He in fact spoiled the machine by dismantling it  which had resulted
in another defect in the same. Ice had  started to accumulating on the
pipe on the back side of the refrigerator and water had started
flowing out from there.  The complainant, therefore,  again filed  a
complaint with  OP2 through an  e-mail on 2.7.2015. A service engineer
 of OP2 again visited her  on 17.7.2015 and 22.7.2015 but was not able
to rectify the defect. The complainant, therefore requested for the
replacement of the refrigerator.  The request was not acceded to by
OP2.



 In R. Sachdeva V/s ICICI Bank F.A. 762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the
Hon’ble State Commission held.

“What is the use of such goods or article if it losses its utility
after a period of one month from its purchase.  The object of Consumer
Protection Act, is to safe     guard the interest of the Consumer
against the unscrupulous manufacture a trader for selling standard or
defective goods.

     In another case title Col. Ravinder Pal Brar v/s Asian Motors FA
73/06 decided on 28.9.2007, the Hon’ble State Commission held:

        The dispute between the Consumer and the service provider and
trader should be ended once for all by calling upon the  trader and
manufacture to refund the cost of goods with adequate compensation as
the possibilities of new goods also being defective and not being up
to the satisfaction of the Consumer cannot be ruled out and in that
case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another
bout of litigation.

In view of the judgments cited by us above and the facts and
circumstances of the case , we are of the considered opinion that OP2
is guilty of rendering deficiency in service under the Consumer
Protection Act to the complainant.  We hold that the refrigerator sold
out to the complainant had a manufacturing defect which could not
remedied by the service engineers of OP2 despite various attempts .
Accordingly we direct OP2 as under:-

1.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 21,800/- along with interest @
10 % p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 8.9.2015
till payment.

2.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for
pain and agony suffered by her.

3.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2500/- as cost of litigation.

4.The OP2 shall take back the refrigerator from the complainant after
making payment of the above mentioned amounts.

  The OP2 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the
date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest
on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  If the OP2 fails to
comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for
execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection
Act.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

    File be consigned to record room.

          Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................