Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant purchased a refrigerator (model no.LG-230 Lt.242 QM – Metallic Blue) from the O.P. on 12-08-05 by paying Rs.14,500/-. As there was no cooling effect, the complainant informed the O.P. service engineer repaired it after 2 days. However, the complainant noticed that the same problem continued. This time the O.P. took the refrigerator and gave him a “stand by” refrigerator for one month. After repairs, the refrigerator was redelivered to the complainant. But there was no relief as the refrigerator went out of order again. A disgusted complainant requested the O.P. to replace the refrigerator. The O.P., however, made the complainant roam about on the pretext that the replacement refrigerator has to come from the company. This led the complainant to issue a legal, notice to the O.P. on 18-11-05 asking him to either replace the refrigerator or refund his money. There was neither any reply nor compliance from the O.P. The complainant’s claim before the Forum is, also, same – replacement of the refrigerator or refund of the money paid by him. He has, also, claimed suitable damages, as he is deprived of convenience from the date of purchase. <br /> 2. The O.P. in his version has admitted that he sold the refrigerator described by the complainant. He reiterates that it was in good working condition at the time of delivery. However, he admits that the complainant complained to the Customer Care Centre at Kuvempunagar, Mysore abvout the problem and got it rectified on 27-08-05 and 03-09-05.<br /> 3. Again, the complainant approached the Customer Care Centre that the refrigerator was not working. This time the Customer Care Centre was ready to replace the refrigerator with a new one but the complainant refused it for reasons not known to the O.P. It has been submitted that the manufacturing company is willing to replace the refrigerator.<br /> 4. The O.P. has defended that the complaint is not maintainable against him and LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd. is solely responsible for any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.<br /> 5. From the above contentions the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> a. Whether the complainant proves that the O.P. has sold a defective refrigerator to him?<br /> b. Whether the O.P. proves that there is no deficiency in service on his part?<br /> c. What order or relief?<br /> 6. The above points have been answered as under:-<br /> Point no.5(a) : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.5(b) : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.5(c) : As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no.5(a):- There is no dispute with regard to purchase of the refrigerator. The invoice dated 12-8-05, receipt no.1061 and delivery challan no.8034 of even date amply prove it. The O.P. has not disputed it. The job sheets dated 26-8-05 and 3-9-05 filed by the O.P. further prove that the problems as narrated by the complainant in the complaint did occur and were attended by LG Electronics. Thus, it is clear that the problem occurred within 15 days of purchase. Thereafter, the problem re-occurred on 3-9-05 and 13-9-05.<br /> 8. The delivery challans dated 20-10-05 and 21-10-05 which are issued by the LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Excel Services (LG Authorised Customer Care Centre), Mysore are enough evidence of the fact that the Customer Care Centre came to the conclusion that the refrigerator sold to the complainant suffered from inherent defects and as such a replacement was offered. The net effect of the above is that a defective refrigerator was sold by the O.P. to the complainant. Hence, we answer the point no.5(a) in the affirmative.<br /> 9. Point no.5(b):- This point has to be viewed in the light of the fact that the manufacturers M/s LG Electronics after carrying out repairs on 3 occasions came to the conclusion that the refrigerator has to be replaced and took steps immediately for obtaining replacement. These steps prove that there is no deficiency in service. Hence, we answer the point no.5(b) in the affirmative.<br /> 10. Since it is known both to the O.P. and to us that the refrigerator sold to the complainant is defective, the question is whether the relief should be replacement of the refrigerator or refund of the money. We did make an attempt to cajole the complainant to opt for an equivalent model of the refrigerator as we were told that the manufacture of the model sold to the complainant has been stopped. However, there was a disagreement between the parties as according to the complainant he was offered a model which did not have “door cooling” feature. Only for this reason, oral evidence of the parties was recorded. During the course of evidence the witness from the O.p.’s side said that he was not aware whether the model offered to the complainant did not have “door cooling” feature. There is no cogent evidence regarding this aspect. Neither has the complainant produced any evidence that the refrigerator he had purchased had “door cooling” feature for which the O.P. asserted that it did not have. Under these circumstances, it is not worthwhile pushing the complainant to accept replacement. Hence, refund is the only option. <br /> 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the O.P. that this complaint should have been filed against the manufacturer and the O.P. who is a dealer has not liable to refund to the amount. We may like to mention that the basic contract of sale is between the complainant the O.P. In case of sale of a defective material or defective goods, a order can be passed under section 14(c) of the C.P.Act, 1986 to return to the complainant, the price or the charges paid by the complainant. Such liability is required to be fixed only against the dealer and not against the manufacturer. Any how, the dealer is at liberty to get the amount reimbursed from the manufacturer according to law. With these observations, we proceed to pass following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. O.P. is directed to refund the complainant Rs.14,300 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of purchase till today.<br /> 3. O.P. is also directed to pay the above mentioned amount within a period of 2 months from the date of this order, failing which future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is chargeable on the entire amount till the date of payment.<br /> 4. O.P. is also directed to pay the damages of Rs.1,000/- for inconvenience suffered by the complainant.<br /> 5. O.P. is at liberty to get reimbursement from the manufacturer according to law.<br /> 6. On payment of the amount, O.P. is entitled to take back the defective refrigerator from the complainant.<br /> 7. parties to bear the costs.<br /> 8. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />