The case of the complainant is as follows: On 27.3.2004 the complainant purchased a refrigerator by home delivery having 165 litres capacity for an amount of Rs.6950/- from 2^nd respondent. On 24.6.2004 the refrigerator was not working and when informed the 2^nd respondent they sent the technicians and they checked the refrigerator and told that the said refrigerator has the complaint of gas block leak. They further told that it may happen due to the transportation and it is curable. After that again on 14.2.05 it became defective and the technicians from the show room came and told that it has the former complaint. When the same complaint is repeated the complainant demanded to take back the said defective fridge and replace with a new one. But the respondent teased the complainant. On 16.2.05 they sent technicians and they filled gas and then the refrigerator became in working condition. Rs.850/- was given for the repair charges. After that on 1.1.2007 the refrigerator was worked continuously without cut off and when it was informed the technicians of respondent came and reported that the thermostat is to be replaced and demanded Rs.150/- as checking charge. The complainant did not pay that amount as the defect is still existing. Thereafter the complainant contacted the technicians of first respondent at Thrissur show room. The said technicians when checked intimated that the gas block leak still exists and in order to repair it needs Rs.1000/- as repairing charge. The defects are not cured. So a lawyer notice was sent. Only the 2^nd respondent sent reply notice by stating untrue facts. Others no response. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. All the respondents are called absent and set exparte.

 

            3. To prove the case of the complainant she had filed an affidavit and the documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P8 and the commission report is marked as Ext. C1.

 

            4. According to the complainant the refrigerator purchased from the 2^nd respondent dealer on 27.3.2004 for an amount of Rs.6950/- found to be not working on 24.6.2004 and the technicians from the respondent service centre checked the fridge and repaired. After that again on 14.2.05 the fridge showed defects and repaired on 16.2.2005. After that on 1.1.2007 also another complaint was found and the technicians of first respondent show room reported that the earlier complaint is repeating. Besides this the technicians demanded the repair charges even within the warranty period. When the complainant demanded to replace the defective fridge with a new one the respondent misbehaved to the complainant. Commissioner inspected and report is filed. There is no evidence to the contrary.

 

            5. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents-1 and 2 are directed to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one and to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation to the complainant with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within two months.