J U D G E M E N T.
Brief facts of the Case :-
The Complainant is staying at Nuapada and working as Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Nuapada, District Nuapada (Odisha) had purchased a “Big Cock Nozzle” from Opposite Party to fit in his Washing Machine at Nuapada for a consideration of Rs. 400/- (Rupees four hundred) on 06.09.2016 and the O.P. assured to return back the same if any defective at the time of installation and issued a Cash Memo No. 581, dated 06.09.2016. On 14.09.2016 one Mechanic of Khariar Road (Odisha) came to the residence of complainant and fitted the same “ Nozzle” but he found defective as leakage of water from “Nozzle” and electric circuit of washing machine had completely damaged since the washing machine was already beyond the warranty so that the complainant had spent of Rs.4,800/- (Rupees four thousand and eight hundred) on the said machine alongwith labour charges and travelling loss from Paigamparp (U.P.) to Chandranagar Kanpur to return the product. Thereafter in Dassehara vacation the complainant went to his parental house at U.P. and he again had gone to the shop of O.P. and told to return the said “Big Cock Nozzle” and claimed the loss of his washing machine but the O.P. denied to give any loss and took back the “Nozzle” in 20% less amount and returned Rs. 320/- (Rupees three hundred and twenty) to the complainant which is mentioned in the said cash memo.
Due to negligence and deficiency in service by the Opposite party, the complainant sustained financial loss, travelling loss and mental agony and claimed for reliefs as prayed for. The complainant has filed the documents in support of their claim as under :-
- True copy of Cash Memo for No. 581 dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A).
- True copy of Train Ticket from Nuapada to Raipur dated 03.09.2016 (Annexure-B).
- True copy of Air Ticket from Raipur to Delhi dt.03.9.2016 (Annex-C).
- True copy of Train Ticket from Raipur to Nuapada dt.12.9.2016 (Annexure-D).
- True copy of Air Ticket from Lucknow to Delhi dt. 12.9.2016 (Annx-E).
- True copy of Air Ticket from Delhi to Raipur dt. 12.9.2016 (Annex-F).
- True copy of Air Ticket from Delhi to Lucknow dt. 03.9.16(Annex-G).
- True copy of Aadhar Card of complainant (Annexure-H).
Being noticed, the Opposite Party failed to file any written version or any documents as he has already taken several adjournments in this case. But here, neither he has filed any written version nor he has taken any further steps, so he set ex-parte in this case.
In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed as and considered :-
- Whether any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
ISSUE No. 1.
On perusal of records, it is seen that the complainant had purchased a “Big Cock Nozzle” from Opposite party with an amount of Rs. 400/- (Rupees four hundred) on 06.9.2016 to fit in his washing machine and issued a Cash Memo vide No. 581 dated 06.9.2016 and also the opposite party assured the complainant to return back the same if found any defect at the time of installation.
On 14.09.2016, one Mechanic of Khariar Road came to the residents of complainant and fitted the said “Big Cock Nozzle” but he found defective as leakage of water defect from “Nozzle” and the electric circuit of washing machine had completely damaged as the washing machine was beyond the warranty period so that the complainant had spend of Rs. 4,800/- (Rupees four thousand and eight hundred) .
Thereafter, the complainant was travelling from Paigamparpwz (U.P.) to Chandranagar Kanpur (U.P.) to return the product and he rushed to the shop of O.P. and complained on it but he did not take any action. Again Dussehara vacation the complainant went to his parental house at U.P. and he had gone to the shop of the O.P. and told to return the said “Nozzle” and claimed the loss of his washing machine but the O.P. denied to give any loss and took back the “Nozzle” in 20% less amount and returned of Rs. 320/- to the complainant which is quite illegal, injustified and inadequate by the O.P.
After perused the documents, it is seen that the complainant was travelling by Train and Air Bus to the shop of O.P. in several times to resolve the dispute but it invain.
In another vital point is that, the O.P. has not challenged the pleadings of the complainant, so it is to be treated as admission by the O.P. which is principle of law.
Further, it is seen that the O.P. has not settled the dispute of the complainant as yet though the complainant has approached again and again before the O.P. which is squarely absurd by him.
Such an uncogenial situation and without any option, the complainant has knocked the door of this Forum.
So, we are of considered view that, the O.P. has failed to give proper service to the complainant for which the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency of service by the O.P.
Thus the O.P. is vicariously liable for deficiency in service.
So, from the perusal of the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applied to all type of goods and all type of services availed by the consumer against consideration paid or promised. Section 1 (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is all wide connotation.
Hon’ble Supreme of India has held in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vrs. BALBIR SINGH “that each and every elements of suffering while availing services as a consumer has to be taken in to consideration while compensating him for the loss or injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency in service of the service provider”.
In further, the Apex Court has held that, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an addition and not in derogation of any other law.
ISSUE No. 2.
It is clear crystal that the complainant has proved his case. He is entitled to get relief in this case. Hence, order.
O R D E R.
In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 14 (i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as below :-
We direct the Opposite Party to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation towards the financial loss, mental agony and to further pay of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards litigation cost within 30 (thirty) days from the date of order, failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law.
Judgement pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, Odisha, this the 29th day of December 2017.
