Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 17th day of August 2015.
C.C.No.85 of 2014.
Smt. Anita Padhan, age-23 years wife of Birendra Padhan.
Resident of village/P.O- Kushmel P.S. Bolangir Sadar
District- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Ashok Kumar Agrawal, son of Gulap Agrawal.
Prop-Ashok General Store, At/P.O-Agalpur, P.S.Loisingha,
Dist- Bolangir.
2.Simanchal Patra, Prop- R.P.Electronics, Nanda Colony,
Jagannath jTemple Road,Near Sriram Vihar, Bhawanipatna,
Kalahandi (Odisha) Authorised Service Center for L.G.
Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- M/S. K.C.Mishra & Associates.
Adv.for the Opp.Parties – None.
Date of filing of the case - 26.11.2014
Date of order - 17.08.2015
JUDGEMNT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
1. In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act,1986, filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the Opp.Parties.
2. Smt. Anita Pradhan had purchased a LG Refrigerator vide an estimate Sl. No.4800 on dt.28.02.2012 against a consideration Rs 10,500/- from ASHOKA GENERAL STORE, AGALPUR RAJ,DIST- BOLANGIR, bearing a warranty period of one year and an additional of 4 years on compressor.
3. The complainant averred the LG refrigerator become non-functional surfacing various defects.The complainant made complain with the vender at Agalpur but no response emerged in alleviation of the defects. Subsequently complaint registered on Toll Free No.vide a Regd.No.1404050 888. Further averred the authorized service centre dispute a mechanic that charged Rs 1100/- for rendering the service.
4. The petitioner stated removal defect on the refrigerator further surfaced and the authorized service centre in giving service received an amount of Rs 1700/- towards job charge, issuing money receipt No-00011.
5. As the refrigerator developed defect of critical nature, the authorized service centre suggested to shift the defect product to P care centre at Bolangir for which a transportation cost has been incurred. The P.Care centre at last opined, the refrigerator will no more functional, thus incurring money in repairment is worthless and also made deaf ear to the issue extended warranty of year on the compressor. So the O.P cheat the complainant without giving service and notably the warranty provision as declared in the time purchase. So the inaction of the O.P is deficiency of service praying array of relief’s because of the harassment, loss of face and mental agony. Relied on purchase estimate and job card original copy.
6. Pursuant to the notice, the O.Ps failed to appear in the case. Non preferred, file any version in either way. We find the notice is sufficient u/s.28A (4) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 in spite of protracted dates in prolonged way given into. In view of the sufficient notice, it is preferred to set the case as per the merit as evidence on record.
7. Prima facie we come to knowledge, the complainant has purchased LG refrigerator against consideration of Rs 10,500/- against an estimate vide Sl No.4800 .As per law estimate slip is not equal to money receipt. So the purchase has it own defects.
8. Further we come to know from the record, no warranty certificate has been filed in advance of additional warranty on compressor, in absence of same ,no warranty claim is entertainable.
9. The other fact is that the job card dt.21.05.2014 vide TCR No.031356/00011 for job No.1405 2100 7049 as charged with Rs 1700/- beyond the warranty period is justified and legally tenable under the law. However, protracted failure and charging repeatedly without any conscientious motive and clarification is committed fault on the part of the O.Ps and exclusively being an authorized centre, which would have express the chronic problem and consequential loss to the complainant. Non acknowledging the prolonged defects and the problem in compressor is deficiency of service within the terms of u/s.2(g) of the consumer protection Act and the quality of repairment leading to the manner of performance is in dismal which has been committed as per the expressed terms of deficiency.
10. On the hand the O.Ps have been charged with non appearing before the forum and they have been levied fine for such non appearance and filing of the version at their end.
11. In view of the above made discussion, we find the complainant is not entitled to get a new refrigerator against the old one. Even warranty on compressor is not supported by any original warranty card, so it is partly conditional to have the warranty cover in place. The petition pleadings is also not backed by any affidavit. The deficiency of service contributed by the O.Ps are specific and minimal in nature. Thus we prefer to charge.
Hence ordered;
ORDER.
(i) The O.Ps are hereby jointly levied with Rs 10/- per day from the 30th day from the date of issue of notice till the date of order without any fail, failing Rs 1/- per day interest will accrue on same till the compliance. The amount will be deposited at State Consumer Welfare Fund, by the forum.
(ii) The O.P.2 is hereby directed to refund the Rs 1,700/- to the complainant immediately as no satisfactory job work has not been given, failing Rs 5/- per day will accrue from the date of application till compliance and carried within 30 days of this order.
(iii) The complainant is to produce the original warranty card before the O.P.2 and claim a new compressor, provided same bears the provision of four years warranty or in other way to disburse/pay the present market price specifically of same model/ mark compressor within the above time frame failing which 6% interest per annum will accrue on the same till compliance.
(iv) In addition to above made direction, the O.Ps in jointly and severally pay five hundred rupees as compensation for the harassment and mental agony sustained within above mentioned time.
No order as to the cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014.
I agree.
( G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
