By Smt Padmini Sudheesh, President <br /> <br /> The petitioner’s case is as follows:<br /> <br /> The petitioner purchased a refrigerator from 1st respondent on 14/4/04 for Rs.10,733/- vide receipt No.59. The said refrigerator has been guaranteed for a period of 5 years and the dealer issued a guarantee card vide No.12002790 dated 13/4/04. After 3 months of purchase, the outer wall of the fridge was found to be defective having many dents and humps. A written complaint regarding the defect was made to the dealer i.e. 1st and 2nd respondents on 14/8/04. An engineer of the Company visited the premises of the petitioner on 8/8/04 and checked the fridge but could not be rectified the defect and promised the petitioner that he will talk to the senior engineers of the Company to replace the fridge with a new one at the earliest. But not replaced. Hence after a month the petitioner made a complaint to the 3rd respondent alleging the above and requested for a speedy and necessary action. After that also one month passed since then but no effort was made by the respondent to remove the defects of the machine or replace the same. Then the petitioner again sent a complaint but fruitless. After that as per the direction of the 1st and 2nd respondents the fridge was returned back to the service center since the defects could not set right and the only solution was to replace it with a new one. No replacement so far. Hence this petition. <br /> <br /> 2. Counter of 1st respondent is as follows: It is true that the petitioner made a purchase from this respondent. But the product was manufactured by 3rd respondent. The petitioner has to prove that it is of inferior quality. If it is of inferior quality the manufacturer is liable. 1st respondent is only a dealer of it and hence dismiss with cost.<br /> <br /> 3. Counter of 2nd respondent is that they received the refrigerator complaint from the complainant on 5/8/04. The complainant reported by the customer was body dent. Their service engineer visited the customer to inspect the refrigerator on 8/8/04. He reported that there are some dents and humps on the walls of the refrigerator which was caused due to PUF shrinkage. Having understood that the above defect can not be rectified by service/repair they forwarded the details to regional office at Ernakulam on 16/8/04. As per the instruction from the regional office they sent them with the replacement note along with the relevant documents and asked the customer to bring the fridge to their service center for replacement. After the confirmation of the replacement they handed over the fridge to branch office at Palakkad and collected the replacement fridge on 16/2/05. vide BPL Advice note No.400360 dated 8/2/05. The next day itself they informed the petitioner that his fridge is ready for delivery at their office after replacement. But the complainant did not take delivery of the replaced one indicating that the refrigerator was used one and there is an internal blow hole at the right hand side bottom. They forwarded the details to their regional office at Ernakulam on 8/2/05. They also forwarded the letter of the petitioner to Ernakulam on 4/4/05. Hence they have done all the necessary action to settle the petitioner’s problem.<br /> <br /> 4.Counter of 3rd respondent is that they deny the petitioner as a consumer. The petitioner had concealed the fact that the opposite parties were ready to replace the refrigerator with another one. The complainant is only to harass the opposite parties. It is submitted that though the petitioner had returned his refrigerator for the reason best known to him he had refused to take the replacement refrigerator from the service center and demanded refund of the purchase price of Rs.10,733/- which was not acceded to by the said opposite party. It is submitted that despite repeated follow up the petitioner failed to take delivery of the replacement refrigerator. Hence liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 5. Points for consideration are<br /> 1) Is there any deficiency in service?<br /> 2) If so reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> 6. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P8 series and P9 series. Respondents no evidence.<br /> <br /> 7. Point No.1 : According to the complainant he had purchased a refrigerator from 1st respondent on 13/4/04 for Rs.10,733/- and got 5 years guarantee and after three months of purchase the fridge was found to be defective and a written complaint was made to 1st and 2nd respondents on 14/8/04. On the basis of the complaint an engineer of the company checked the product in the premises of the complainant but could not rectify the defect and promised that he will talk to the service engineer of the company to replace with a new one. But there was no remedy for one month and after a month the complainant made a complaint to the 3rd respondent for a speedy action. Even after one month no effort was made by the respondents and again complaint was made and nothing was happened. He has produced documents to establish his case. The documents are marked as Exhibits P1 to P9 series. Exhibit P1 is the invoice and it shows the price which is Rs. 10,733/- only. Exhibits P3 to P6 and Exhibit P8 series are the letters made to the respondents regarding the defects of the fridge and the need of replacement. He had returned the same to 2nd respondent. In the counter 2nd respondent stated that having understood the defects it cannot be rectified by service or repair they forwarded the details to their regional office at Ernakulam on 16/8/04 and as per the instruction from their regional office they sent the replacement note along with the relevant documents and asked the complainant to bring the refrigerator to their service center for replacement. They also stated in the counter that they informed the complainant that his refrigerator is ready for delivery at their office after replacement. But when the complainant inspected the fridge at their office he did not take delivery because the product was used one and there was also some defect. The 2nd respondent intimated the matter to regional office. After that this complaint is filed. According to 2nd respondent they have done all the necessary things in time to settle the problem. So this is a best evidence that they admitted the case of complainant. It is a best piece of evidence and nothing more is necessary to take a view in favour of complainant. In the counter the 1st respondent stated that the 3rd respondent is responsible to compensate the complainant. The 3rd respondent also admitted the case of complainant and stated that the complainant has come to the Forum with unclean hands and had concealed the readiness of opposite parties to replace the refrigerator. Hence further discussion is not necessary. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are admitting the case and 1st respondent trying to escape from the liability by putting the burden on the hand of 3rd respondent. The case of complainant is genuine and established by the versions of respondents also. So definitely he is entitled for a reasonable relief. The service deficiency of respondents is proved.<br /> <br /> 8. Point No.2 :There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Even though the respondents are ready to replace the fridge it was a used one and he disagreed with it. So it is reasonable to order to refund the price of the product. The fridge was purchased from 1st respondent and the same was returned to 2nd respondent. The price was received by 1st respondent, but the product was returned to 2nd respondent without consideration. Hence both are liable.<br /> <br /> 9. In the result complaint is allowed and the 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to <br /> return the price of the refrigerator as shown in Exhibit P1 invoice and all are directed to pay Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards compensation. Comply the order within one month.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 12th day of November 2008. <br />