PRESENT

Complainant by Adv. L.K.Sachdev present.

Opponent No.1 & 2 Ex-parte.

Opponent No. 3 Absent.

ORDER

(Per- Shri. S.D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President )

1. The complainant purchased a Microwave, Modal No.NN-C 784 MF, serial No. 5G 72210125 on 1.11.2012 from opp.no.1 Jyoti electronics for Rs.15,000/-. It is alleged that said Microwave oven started giving trouble since beginning i.e. from the date of purchase of a Microwave.

2. The complainant paid Rs.500/- for demo of using the oven as company’s free demo was not satisfactory. He used the same for one month after demo and thereafter oven stopped working.

3. The complainant alleged that, thereafter repeatedly problems continued and stated that Mr. Ajay Chitankar from customer care abused him and blamed for not using the oven properly.

4. According to complainant, the representative of opp.no. 1 after inspection of oven stated that circuit board is off & removed the same from machine. The problems continued and complainant alleged that Mr. Singh assured that machine will be taken back and amount will be refunded to him.

5. The complainant alleged that, Mr. Singh i.e. representative of opp.no. 1 failed to either refund of amount or replace the oven as assured by him. He prayed for direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation , Rs.5,000/- as cost and refund of price of Rs.15,000/-.

6 The complaint was admitted. The notice was served on all opposite parties. The case proceeded ex-parte against opp.no. 1 and 2 on 3.2.2016

7. The opp.no. 3 filed written version and denied allegations regarding deficiency in service or any defect in the product. It is alleged that complainant approched opp.no. 1 on 30.10.2013 after one year from the date of purchase.

8. The opp.no. 3 alleged that complainant approched opp.no. 2 &3 on 1.2.2013 and technicians of opp.no. 2 & 3 visited the house of complainant and diagnosed product and replaced the fuse as per warranty.

9. The opp.no. 3 alleged that expert from manufacturing company did not indicate any defect and as per law machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired. It is prayed complaint be dismissed with cost.

10. We have perused complaint and written version filed by opp.no. 3. The complainant filed affidavit of evidence on 13.6.2017. The opp. failed to file affidavit of evidence though sufficient time was give for the same.

11. The documents on record show that complainant purchased a Microwave oven on 1.11.2012 from opp.no. 1 for Rs.15,000/-. The said product was having one year warranty.

12. The evidence affidavit of complainant shows that from very beginning the Microwave oven started giving troubles. The repairing was done temporarily. The complainant has given details in the complaint and affidavit regarding visit of mechanic of company for temporary solution.

13. The complainant stated in the complaint and affidavit of evidence regarding repeated instances of repairs through customer care and representative of show room. The complainant stated on affidavit that one Mr. Ajay Chitankar from customer care instead of taking complaint started abusing him. The said fact is not specifically denied by opp. in written statement.

14. The certificate of warranty issued by panasonic India Pvt. Limited shows that warranty is for one year from 1.11.2012. The evidence show that complainant was subjected to mental agony and financial loss due to not functioning product during warranty period. He was subjected to trams due to abusive language by representative of customer care dept.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that opposite parties failed to render after sale service during warranty period. The opp.no. 3 stated that technician visited house of complainant and replaced the fuse as per warranty entitlement. The evidence shows that Mr. Singh collected bills and assured to refund amount or replace the product.

16. Considering the evidence on record and all the documents, we hold that opposite parties are guilty for deficiency in service. The complainant is entitle for reasonable compensation of Rs.12,000/- for mental agony and financial loss.

17. As we are awarding compensation considering all facts of case, we do not pass order regarding repairs and replacement as warranty is over since long . The direction of refund are not given as we awarded compensation considering use of product , problems existed and treatment given by representative of customer care.

18. The complainant is entitle for cost of Rs.7,000/-

19.. In the result, we pass the following order.

                                                      ORDER

1. The Consumer complaint No.408/2014 is partly allowed.

2. The opponent No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand ) for mental agony & financial loss to complainant within three months failing which amount shall carry interest @ 12 % p.a. from date of order.

3. The opponent No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand ) as cost to complainant.

4. The copy of this order be sent free of cost to both parties.