This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of             Sri. Kona Chandra Sekhar Gupta, Advocate for complainant; and of                 Sri. Machha Nagesh Babu, Advocate for Opposite party No.3; opposite parties No.1&2 called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Samsung 224 Ltrs. Refrigirator on 20-04-2011 for Rs.14,800/- with warranty of 5 years.  After six months of its purchase, started giving troubles such as sudden stoppage, non-cooling and compressor was not working.  Upon which, made a complaint to the opposite party No.2 through the opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.2 sent a technician, who attended the repairs on 15-01-2014, 16-06-2014, 19-10-2014 and on 18/19-05-2015 vide complaint No.4197478679 again on 27-05-2015 vide complaint No.8460700851 and claimed Rs.300/- for each repair.  The complainant also submitted that instead of making repairs on many times, the refrigerator was not working properly.  Vexed with the same, issued legal notice on 11-01-2016, inspite of receiving, there was no response from the opposite parties and as such approached this Forum by praying to direct the opposite parties to replace defective refrigerator with new one or to refund Rs.5,000/- together with interest @24% per annum from the date of purchase and to award Rs.50,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and costs.

3.      In support of his case, the complainant filed affidavit and exhibits                 A-1 to A-4.

4.      After receipt of notice, the opposite party No.3 filed counter by submitting that the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as there is no manufacturing defect nor any deficiency of service.  Further submitted that after lapse of 2½ years from the date of purchase, the first complaint was lodged on 26-12-2013, immediately, the persons of it were attended the repairs.  Thereafter, on 16-06-2014 another complaint was lodged, after attending the repairs, it was noticed that the compressor was failed, accordingly, it was replaced with new one, thereafter, the refrigerator started working in good condition.  On 15-07-2014 again a complaint was lodged but after attending the refrigerator, noticed that there was no defect, only required adjustment of thermostat.  The opposite party No.3 further admitted that once again the complainant made a complaint vide complaint No.4194423736 and after that, it was found that the unit was not repairable, when it was noticed while inspection of refrigerator on receipt of complaint from the complainant.  Therefore, made an offer to the complainant for refund of depreciated value, which was not accepted by the complainant.  Thereafter, another complaint was lodged on 21-05-2015.  Upon which, wrote a letter to the complainant by informing its willingness in payment of depreciated value according to the conditions of warranty as the refrigerator cannot be repairable.  So the complainant cannot be entitled anything more than the terms and conditions of warranty and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.   

5.      In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

It is the case of the complainant that he was purchased Samsung 224 Litres Refrigerator from the shop of opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.3 on 20-04-2011 for an amount of Rs.14,800/- with 5 years warranty but the same was started giving troubles after six months of its purchase.  Despite making many repairs, the defects were not rectified.  Therefore, claimed for replacement or refund of cost of the refrigerator as the defects were arisen repeatedly within the period of warranty.  On the other hand the manufacturer / opposite party No.3 already offered to pay only depreciated value by admitting that the unit was not repairable and also admitted the repeated repairs, done by its technician.  According to Indian Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved. The facts as mentioned in the complaint and counter itself speaks that the refrigerator required to be repaired on several occasions and the opposite parties are not in a position to find the solution.  Moreover, if the purchaser lost his satisfaction would be much more in case of repeated repairs when he buys such goods with his hard earned money.  Therefore, in our view, it is the bounden duty of the opposite party No.3 to replace the defective refrigerator with new one or to refund the cost of the refrigerator and as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.  

6.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.3 to replace the defective Samsung 224 litre Refrigerator with new one, purchased by the complainant vide bill dt. 20-04-2011 or to refund Rs.14,800/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred only) to the complainant.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The complaint against opposite parties No.1 & 2 is dismissed.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 27^th day of January, 2017.

                                                                   FAC President              Member      

                                                                        District Consumer Forum,

    Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties

FAC President              Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam.