Adv. For the Complainant: - Self
Adv. For O.P :- - P.K.Monmo and associates
Date of filing of the Case :- 20.07.2020
Date of Order :- 15.09.2022
JUDGMENT
Facts of the Case in nutshell :-
-2-
1. The Case of the Complainant is that he purchase a refrigerator of Godrej Company from the authorised seller Nataraja Home Plaza , Bolangir on dated 28.02.2019 for domestic use. After 24.05.2020 the refrigerator not functioning and became dead. The complainant contact the service provider of the same company OP No.2 and after OP No.3. There after OP No.2 Come to his house to detect the fault and found the compressor was out of order and advise the complainant that due to the coverage of the warranty period same will be replaced after communicating to the Head Office at Mumbai. The Complainant contact the OPs but the Ops did not response, which according to the complainant is not according with the procedure and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence the Complainant.
To substantiate his Case the complainant has relied upon the following documents.
1 The Original Invoice Slip.
2. The Warranty Card.
2. Having gone through the complainant and the accompanied document on hearing the “Prima facie” of the complainant case seemed to be genuine hence admitted and notice to the OPs were served and filed their written version.
3. The OPs have contested the case by filing their written version jointly. According to the OPs the freeze of the complainant was tested and the OP No.2 asked the complainant for the Original tax invoice (Cash memo) which the complainant unable to produce the same and due to the lack of proof of authenticate Purchase the OP No.2 left the place. The Complainant did not provide the original invoice after several follow up measure taken by the OPs. The OPs are very much willing to provide service of the complainant if he would prove the claim of his bonafide by producing authenticated purchase bill/invoice.
4 Heard both the parties perused the material on record with submission and vehement denials with arguments. Perused the documentary evidence available on the record it is seen that the complainant filed the original invoice as well as the warranty card issued by OP No.1. The document relied on by the Ops cannot be said to be proper procedure for not delivering the service on the part of the OPs.
The point of consideration is whether the refrigerator be exchange to new on e or the complainant compensate with cost(the purchase value of the commodity). Hence the
-3-
company gives 10 years warranty but not the guarantee as such the complainant compensate with cost.
On our observation of the details of the case in hand it is observed that because of the callous attitude of the OPs complainant has under gone with mental , physical and financial harassment for which entitled for an amount of Rs.19000/- against the price of the freeze and Rs.3000/- as compensation to which all the Ops as such is entitled for and amount of Rs.2000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence our order follows:-
ORDER.
In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above opposite parties are jointly directed to pay an amount of Rs.19000/- for the refrigerator and Rs.3000/- towards his mental agony and physical harassment and an amount of Rs.2000/- towards his litigation expenses total Rs.24000/-. In default of which the total amount would accrue and interest @9% P.A till the realisation of the total amount. But the Ops at liberty to take the old refrigerator after payment of the same. No order as to compensate cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COMMISSION THIS THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER’2022.
(J.MISHRA) (R.K.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT(I/C)
