This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on                 20-09-11 in the presence of Sri B.V. Gowri Sankar, advocate for complainant and of Sri P. Veeraiah, advocate for opposite parties                   1 and 2, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking replacement of refrigerator Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant on 26-10-10 purchased videocon refrigerator along with rice cooker from the 1^st opposite party on its inducement.    The complainant came to know that the said refrigerator is not working properly.   The complaint immediately brought the same to the notice of the 1^st opposite party.   After number of visits by him the 1^st opposite party allowed the complainant to write in the complaint books of the showroom under online on 02-12-10.   The 1^st opposite party sent a technician attended to the repairs of the said refrigerator.   The next day onwards the same complaint again arose.  On complaint the technician of the 1^st opposite party attended for repair of the said refrigerator.   The complainant visited the 1^st opposite party and requested him to replace it.   The 1^st opposite party did not respond properly.   The complaint got issued registered notice to the opposite parties.   Though received notice the 1^st opposite party kept quite.   The 2^nd opposite party managed to get the notice returned.   The complainant again faced the problem of the refrigerator.   The 1^st opposite party sent a technician to the house of the complainant who attended the repairs of the said refrigerator but in vain.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the version of the 1^st opposite party and their contention in nutshell is hereunder:

        The 1^st opposite party attended to the complaints of the complainant in December, 2010 and March, 2011 and rectified the mistakes to the satisfaction of the complainant through its technician.   The 1^st opposite party advised the complainant to fix a standard stabilizer for proper functioning of the refrigerator.  On 29-03-11 the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and informed that the same problem is being repeated and sought for replacement at once.   The 1^st opposite party assured that the refrigerator needs a through check up and requested to keep it on observation at service centre at Guntur.   The complainant refused to sent the refrigerator and is insisting for replacement.   The complainant had not taken proper care and caution in using the refrigerator.  The opposite parties never neglected to the complaints made by the complainant.   As per warrantee the opposite party sincerely attended to the grievance of the complainant.   The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-6 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-3 on behalf of the opposite parties were marked. 

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replacement of   refrigerator?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation                             and if so to what amount?

3. To what relief?

6.   Undisputed facts in this case are these:

        1.   The complainant purchased videocon refrigerator on                           26-02-10 from the 1^st opposite party (Ex.A-1).

        2.   The said refrigerator was manufactured by OP2.

        3.   The refrigerator purchased under Ex.A-1 was covered by a                  warranty (Ex.A-5).

        4.   The complainant issued notices to the opposite parties

                (Exs.A-2 to A-4).

        5. The 1^st opposite party sent a technician to attend to the                            repairs of the refrigerator of the complainant and affected                    repairs (Exs.B-2 and B-3). 

7.   POINT No.1:- The complainant filed this complaint on                   02-04-11.   In the affidavit filed on 16-08-11 the complainant mentioned that on 02-04-11 the 1^st opposite party sent a technician after filing this complaint and sent the refrigerator to their authorised service centre for observation (Ex.A-6) which the 1^st opposite party suppressed.   The complaint returned on 06-04-11 was represented on 07-04-11.  The complainant did not make a whisper about the                   1^st opposite party taking refrigerator through its technician for observation.   The opposite parties answered the allegations made in the complaint.   Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the opposite parties suppressed about they taking refrigerator covered by Ex.A-1 for observation.  

8.   The averments of the respective parties revealed that dispute arose between them when the 1^st opposite party failed to replace the refrigerator. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant is not using standard stabilizer though advised.   The contention of the opposite parties is that there was an in built stabilizer.   It is not the case of the complainant that problems are persisting inspite of using stabilizer.    Nowhere in the manual it was mentioned that the refrigerator in question had inbuilt stabilizer.   The mechanic of the opposite parties attended to repairs of the refrigerator in question thrice from the date of purchase i.e., within five months.   It can therefore be inferred that the refrigerator purchased by the complainant under Ex.A-1 is not functioning properly.   Under those circumstances, directing the opposite parties to replace Ex.A-1 will meet ends of justice.   For the discussion made supra we answer this point against the opposite parties. 

9.   POINT NO.2:-  Exs.B-1 to B-3 coupled with the complainant’s affidavit revealed that the opposite parties attended to the repairs.    Under those circumstances there was no deficiency in our opinion on the opposite parties.   Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.    Hence we answer this point against the complainant. 

10. POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to replace the refrigerator of same model (as mentioned in Ex.A-1).
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.
3. The above order shall be complied within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 23rd day of              September, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties 1, 2 & 4: 

 PRESIDENT