DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Dated the 30th day of January 2023.
C. C. No. 85 of 2021.
Present1. ShriShiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
PradeepMohanty, S/o:-Upendra Mohanty,
At/Po:-Nuagaon Ichhapur, Via:- Matto, P.S:- Bansada,
Dist- Bhadrak .……………. Complainant.
(Versus)
- Haier Appliaances (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Building No. 1, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase 111, New Delhi-110020.
- M/s Shanti Agency,
Near Bharat Petrol Pump, Chandbali,
At/Po/P.S:- Chandbali, Dist:- Bhadrak.
…………Opposite parties.
Counsel For Complainant : In Person
Counsel For the Opp. Parties : None
Date of hearing : 27.12.2022.
Date of order : 30.01.2023.
SMT. MADHUSMITA SWAIN, MEMBER.
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;
“To replace the Air Condition of Haier Company or to return the cost of Air Condition i.e. Rs.30,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.”
Brief facts of the case is that :-
The complainant has purchased an Air Condition of Haier Company bearing Model No: HS18T-NMW3B, SNIDU-AL00MCOO-GO15UM3E0059 & SNODU-AL00MDOOGO25UM3ND184 on 17.05.2021 for Rs.30,500/- from M/s Shanti Agency, Bhadrak. The product was financed by Bajaj Finserv. After seven days of use the Air Cooler did not cool the room properly.
The complainant has complained the matter before the Opposite parties and the Service Engineer of O.P. attended the complaint but did not remove the original defects of A.C., the coolent system of the A.C. not working properly in order to operate as under standard condition. The complainant was not satisfied with the service of the O.P’s Engineer as the Air Cooler still did not cool the room in normal condition. Hence this complaint.
The complainant in support of the case has file following documents.
- Cash/Credit Invoice,
- Delivery order of Bajaj Finance Ltd.,
- Message of Haier Company regarding service on 15.06.2021,
- Resolve message of Haier Company on 16.06.2021 on 10.01 P.M. &
- Message from Haier Company that complains assigned to Engineer Mr. Kamalasish Kar 16.06.2021 at 10.01 P.M.
Notice was issued to O.Ps to appear & to file their written statement on 25.03.2022& on 23.08.2022.Inspite of issue of notice the company never responded and was set ex-parte as the notice was sent in correct address with postage prepaid.The O.Ps was set ex-parte vide Order No.8, dt.27.12.2022.
On the basis of pleading & documents available on record the following issues are framed.
Issue No.1.
Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?
It seems from the document on record that the complainant has purchased one Haier Air Cooler for Rs.30,500/- for own use on payment of consideration, so the complainant is a consumer as per Section 7 of C.P. Act, 2019.
So Issue No.1 is answered in favour of complainant.
Issue No. 2.
Whether this Commission has got the jurisdiction to try this case & whether the case has been filed within time limit ?
The complainant is a permanent resident of this Commission & the O.P. has also business set up within this Commission’s jurisdiction.
The value of claim & dispute being Rs.75,000/- is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant is also within the time limit i.e. 2 years. So this Commission has got jurisdiction to try this case.
Issue No. 3.
Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps ?
The A.C. is purchased for consideration of Rs.30,500/- on dated 17.05.2021. After 5 days of use the A.C. became defective and the complainant complained on the website of O.P. but inspite of repair of A.C. by Service Engineer of O.P. the A.C. have some defects.It did not work properly &it failed to cool. Notice was issued to the O.Ps & it was sufficient but the O.Ps preferred not to appear or challenge the allegation made against them in any manner. It is settled principle of law that where the O.P. inspite of service of notice neither appear nor challenges the allegations raised against him, it is presumed to have been admitted by him as the O.P. did not challenge the allegations raised against them.
After repair of the A.C. by O.P’s Service Engineer still the A.C. is defective which is negligence on the part of O.P. which creates gross deficiency of service on the part of O.P.
O R D E R.
The complaint petition is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. The O.P. No.1 is directed to replace the defective A.C. with a new one of the same make & model and if it fails to replace the A.C. shall refund the cost of A.C. The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards cost of litigation.
The order is to be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the Open Court on this the 30thday of January 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
