M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) THE first and second opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) THE first respondent in this appeal as complainant sought directions against the opposite parties, to replace the Refrigerator purchased by him and also to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation for hardship and mental agony, alleging that within the short period from the date of purchase, the Refrigerator had given problems and despite attempted repair, by the second opposite party, they were unable to find out the actual cause, which should be the manufacturing defect and therefore, since he suffered due to manufacturing defect, direction should be issued as prayed for.
(3.) THE first and second opposite parties not very much challenging the purchase of the Refrigerator, but questioning the averments in the complaint, resisted the case, that there was no problem in the Refrigerator due to any alleged manufacturing defect, that as and when call for by the complainant came, the Technician of the opposite parties attended the same, identified the cause, making functional and after 24.4.2006 because of the functioning of the Refrigerator properly, no complaint was informed, thereby showing the opposite parties have not committed any negligence or deficiency. The Refrigerator purchased by the complainant, was not having manufacturing defect, which should follow no question of replacement or compensation arise for consideration.;