O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> The case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The petitioner purchased a Videocon Refrigerator worth Rs. 10490/- along with a television from the 2nd opposite party's shop at Pala on 22..12..2003, as per vide bill No. 326. At the time of purchase warranty was issued to the petitioner with vide warranty No. 1410301005210. The Refrigerator of the petitioner turned defective and became non functioning from the month of July, 2005. The petitioner demanded the second opposite party, the authorised dealer, to cure the defect and to redress his grievance. But he did not care to do so. The petitioner's mother is suffering from several diseases and she is under going treatment at Indo-American Hospital, Chemmanakkary. The petitioner's only son is suffering from “Spastic Diplegic Cerebral Palsy” and is under going treatment at<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> <br /> Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. According to the petitioner very purpose of the refrigerator is to preserve the medicines and injections. Due to the non functioning of the refrigerator the petitioner has to seek alternate arrangements to preserve the medicines. The petitioner issued a lawyers notice to the opposite parties on 30..10..2005 demanding replacement and claiming damages. First opposite party accepted the notice second opposite party refused to accept the same but none of them had respond to the notices issued by the petitioner. The petitioner estimated his damages as Rs. 20490/-. Petitioner states that the act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. So, he claim an amount of Rs. 20490/- as damages with 12% interest per annum and also he claim for the cost of the proceedings.<br /> First opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Notice to the second opposite party was served but the opposite party has not filed version. So second opposite party was set ex-parte. According to the first opposite party the allegation of non functioning of the refrigerator from July, 2005 is false. The petitioner has not approached first opposite party as alleged in the petition. After the receipt of the lawyers notice the first opposite party sent their service personals for curing the complaint of the refrigerator but the petitioner had not co operated with the first opposite party. According to the first opposite party warranty period of the refrigerator was over. For the remaining period of one year company has offered only free repairing of the compressor. For the repairing, as per the warranty, the petitioner has to bear gas charges and transportation charges. So the first opposite party is unable to provide the service. <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> <br /> They contented that there was no latches or deficiency on their part and they are ready and willing to repair the refrigerator as per the terms and condition of the warranty. According to the opposite party there was no deficiency of service on their part so, they prayed for a dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit of the petitioner Ext. A1 to A8 documents. Opposite parties evidece consists affidavit of the first opposite party.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner produced the warranty condition of the refrigerator, vide No. 1410301005210, dtd: 22..12..2003. The said document is marked as Ext. A2.Ext. A2 is for a period of 12 months warranty commencing from the date of purchase. The compressor and evaporater were given 6 years of warranty. As per clause (3) of Ext. A2 <br /> the petitioner has to bear the expenses incur in collecting the unit or parts etc., The petitioners fridge was in trouble in July 2005 ie, after the period of warranty. So in this case the petitioner as per clause (3) of Ext. A2 has to bear the travelling expenses and gas charges. The 1st opposite party in his affidavit has averred that now also they are ready to avail services to opposite party if they bear gas charge and transportation charges. So, we are of the opinion that we cannot compel the opposite party to go beyond the warranty. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case we are of the<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of findings in point No. 1 , the petition is to be dismissed. No cost is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of April, 2008.<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-<br /> Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member Sd/-