G VATHIRAJAN Vs. STANDARD ELECTRIC CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd complainant is the appellant (1st complainant is SMN Consumer Protection Council ). The complaint in the District Forum ended in dismissal. The 2nd complainant purchased one Kalvinator Refrigerator of 165 litres from the 1st opposite party on 3.1.1991. The case of the 2nd complainant is that from the date of purchase of the refrigerator, it was over cooling and there was a hole at the bottom. When this was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party - Service Agent of the 1st opposite party, that was rectified by changing the compressor and plugging the hole. But in spite of it, the refrigerator continued to be defective and malfunctioning because the refrigerator had inherent manufacturing defect. The 2nd complainant requested the opposite parties to either place the refrigerator with a new one or refund the sale price, but they declined. On these allegations, with the help of the 1st complainant, the complaint was filed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the refrigerator and to pay compensation for the expenditure incurred by him in this regard.

(2.) The 1st opposite party remained exparte.

(3.) The 2nd opposite party filed a written version contending that the complaint filed without impleading the manufacturers of the refrigerator is bad. They denied that the refrigerator was causing problems as alleged in the complaint. They also contended that among several of their customers, only the complainant expresses grievance, and without giving an opportunity to this opposite party to look into the problem the complainant has rushed to me Court. They further contended that the complaint is barred by limitation.