BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO- 13/2020
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Alok Ranjan Guru
S/O- Santosh Kumar Guru
At/PO/PS:- Dhanupali, Dist:- Sambalpur ……….Complainant
Versus
1. V-Guard Industries having its
Regd. Office at 42/962,
Vennala High School Road,
Vennala, Kochi-682028
2. G.N. Electronics Situated at Budharaja,
PO:- Bhudharaja,PS:-Ainthapali,
Dist:-Sambalpur
3. Milan Enterprises,
situated at Opposite Bazar India,
Charbhati Chowk, Sambalpur,
PS:-Dhanupali, Sambalpur ……….Opp.Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Self
- For the O.P-1 :- self
- For the O.P-2 :- Self
- For the O.P-3 :- Sri P.M.Dash, Advocate & Associates.
DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 24.02.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA, PRESIDENT:-The Complainant has purchased a new 5-KVA Stabilizer vide model no-IFB IVS954A from the O.P-2(the Dealer) since last five years. The said Stabilizer had developed a defect relating to Power Supply after fifth year of purchase for which the Complainant made contact with the O.P-2(Dealer) to solve the problem. Being a Distributer as he has no service facilities, he referred the Complainant to the authorised service centre who is the O.P-3 in the present case. The Complainant on dtd.19.05.2020 took the Stabilizer to the O.P-3 who after inspection found that the fault is in the Relay Operation. The O.P-3 handed over the same to the Complainant on the next day saying that the problem has been solved and charged Rs.460/-. He issued a receipt vide no-7975 dtd. 20.05.2020 with a service warranty for 30 days from the service date with a condition that if any fault found in the repaired items, then he will repair it without any additional charges. But on reaching home the Complainant found the same problem as earlier and reached to the O.P-3 on the next day dtd. 21.05.2020, where the O.P-3 told that he will charge if other spare parts are found defective. On dtd.23.05.2020 and returned home with the repaired Stabilizer but found the same in dead/functionless condition which was in the worse condition as earlier. On opening the cover of the Stabilizer the Complainant found that the PCB board is completely damaged by some untrained technician. The Complainant before giving the Stabilizer to the O.P-3 for servicing has taken some photographs of the interior to keep some proof for future. The Complainant is a Govt. Servant who was busy in his duty during the COVID-19 Pandemic still he has several times visited the shop of the O.P-3 but he every time been harassed by the O.P-3. The Complainant has become mentally and financially harassed by the O.P for his deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice committed to him and prays for certain relief as per the petition. But after some months i.e on dtd. 11.11.2020 the Complainant filed a petition to withdraw case against the O.P-1 for the reason that the product is IFB make stabilizer and not a V-Guard Product, related to V- Guard Industries Ltd. Also the O.P-1 in his written statement mentioned the same.
According to the OP-2 who is the authorised dealer of IFB, the warranty period was for three years from the date of purchase and the same is expired when the Complainant came to him for service of the said Stabilizer. The O.P-2 referred him to make contact with the O.P-3 who is the Authorised service centre of V-Guard.
According to the O.P-3 the product of the Complainant is of IFB and not related to V-Guard and he had denied providing service to the Complainant as he is not the authorised service personnel to handle IFB products. But on request of the Complainant he agreed to receive the same for a service on payment. He charged Rs.460/- towards servicing after solving the problem and when the Complainant was not satisfied with the service, the O.P-3 tried to return the service charges of Rs.460/- taken earlier but the Complainant refused to receive the same. The O.P-3 is ready to return the money. As he has no role in the above matter he has not committed any deficiency in service to the Complainant and the case deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of proper parties.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new 5-KVA Stabilizer vide model no-IFB IVS954A from the O.P-2 with a promise to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said Stabilizer after using the same for five years. It is observed that despites several visits to the O.P-3, he could not be able to repair. The O.P-2 is supposed to provide necessary after sale services but he shifted the burden to the Authorised Service Centre and the manufacturer. The allegations framed on the O.P-3 were not established due to lack of documentary evidence. Still the O.P-3 is ready to return the money as stated in his written statements. Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-3 is directed to return the service charges of Rs.460/- taken from the Complainant towards repairing the defective Stabilizers in shape of Demand Draft and send it to him as per his address given in this case. No orders as to Compensation and Cost. The orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 24th day of February-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-sd/-(24.02.2021) -sd/-(24.02.2021)
Smt. S.Tripathy Sri. D.K. Mahapatra
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-sd/-(24.02.2021)
Sri. D.K. Mahapatra
PRESIDENT
