ANTHONYMUTHU Vs. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1051 of 2011 A. Antony Muthu Vs. M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd. & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased Whirlpool refrigerator model No. 10865 Elite AS 220 liters, in code No. 081205, Serial No. INAO 84903830 for a sum of Rs.15,500/- on 17.7.2009 from OP No. 3/Respondent No. 3 manufactured by OP No. 1 & 2/Respondent No. 1 & 2. On the date of delivery itself, complainant suspected that an old fridge has been delivered, made complaint to OP No. 2 & 3. On his complaint, OP No. 2 visited his premises and subsequently service engineer also visited his premises and replied that date of manufacture could not be traced. Not mentioning date of manufacture on the refrigerator amounts to unfair trade practice. Inspite of repeated reminders, refrigerator was not replaced by new one. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 & 2 contested complaint and submitted that delivered refrigerator was a new one and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) None appeared for Respondent No. 3 even after service; hence, he was proceeded ex-parte.