Learned counsel for the appellants is absent.

           Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is present.

           None appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in spite of notice.

          Heard learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2.      This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.    The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant’s father was a kidney patient and he was required to have dialysis regularly. Since he used to stay in the village where power supply was not continuous, he under the advice of the doctor desired to purchase the inverter to keep the functioning of the regular medicines smoothly. So he purchased one inverter from OP No.4 on 2.4.2013 and it has got guarantee of three years. The complainant alleged inter alia that after five months of use, the inverter went out of order for which he approached the OP but the OP did not turn up to repair the inverter. So he filed the complaint.

4.      OP Nos. 1 to 3 filed written version stating that the complainant has purchased the inverter from them and  after received the complaint, they have attended the repair work and accordingly they have also  submitted the report of the concerned Service Engineer. It is the case of the OPs that in the power shortage area the inverter does not function as is required. Since the complainant’s place  is in a remote area and has no electricity available as required to keep up the power supply intact, the inverter frequently remained out of order without functioning. Thus, they  submitted that they have no any deficiency of service so far inverter is concerned and as such the complaint should be dismissed.

5.      Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

In the result the dispute is allowed against the OP no.1, 2, 3 and 4 as all the OPs arte jointly and severally liable for the grievance of the petitioner. Accordingly we allow Rs.1,30,000/- (one lakh thirty thousand) which includes Rs.30,000/- towards cost of the inverter and Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh) towards compensation to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the present dispute till its realization. No cost.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants although absent at the time of hearing but has  filed the appeal memo  stating  clearly  that the appellants – Company is a reputed company and  the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the written version and the materials placed by the OPs. Learned District Forum ought to have appreciated the fact that the inverter and battery  are to function with full potential as per the guidelines. But in the instant case the guidelines are not followed by the complainant. Since the complainant has not followed the proper procedure for functioning of the inverter, the OPs were not responsible for this. In toto it is submitted that the learned District Forum has not appreciated the matter on record and as such landed a wrong conclusion. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  their village is having power supply but there is frequent  disruption of power by the concerned department for which he purchased the inverter to save the life of his father.

8.      Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the OPs have filed the papers where there is no signature of the customer and in fact the OPs have not attended the repair work at all. He supports the impugned order and submits to dismiss the appeal.

9.      Considered the appeal memo and the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    It is the complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

11.    It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the inverter from the OPs. It is also admitted fact that there is less power supply to the complainant’s village. But it is not a fact that the village has no power supply at all.

12.    Annexure – 3 series produced by the complainant show that the OPs have submitted three visiting service report but none of them shows the signature of the complainant to prove the visit of OP’s expert. OPs have also relied upon the said report. Had there been visit of the OPs to repair the inverter, there must be signature of the customer to prove that visit. In absence of signature of the customer the complaint is found to have proved that OPs have not attended their work. The  guarantee since continuing for three years, fact that  the inverter requires repair after five months and the OPs instead of attending repair files the false service reports all these facts  consistently prove the deficiency of service of the OPs. Therefore, complainant has proved the deficiency of service of the OPs. The question of power supply less or more cannot be decided at this juncture when OPs have not performed their part.

13.    Be that as it may, learned District Forum has passed the correct impugned order and the same is confirmed. The appeal sans merit and stands dismissed. No cost.

DFR be sent back forthwith.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.