Mr. Justice Malik Sharief-ud-Din, President—We have waited long for the appellant and since there is no appearance we proceed to judgment after hearing the Counsel for the opposite party.

2. The controversy is short. The D.F. was approached by the respondent for redressal of die grievances on the ground that the appellant had supplied her a defective refrigerator which she had purchased from the appellant on 28.1.1992. Even though the refrigerator was under warranty it started giving trouble with the result that on her approach the appellant deputed a mechanic in May, 1992 but the mechanic could not rectify the defect as the defect was in the sealed portion of the refrigerator and it could only be removed in the workshop. She was accordingly advised to remove the refrigerator to workshop which was in fact removed but not delivered back to her.

3. The opposite party No. 1 in the complaint on appearing before the D.F. admits all the facts but contends that within 2-3 days of the delivery of the refrigerator the respondent was informed to collect the same but she did not. D.F. on an assessment of the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that there has been a deficiency in