Orissa

Jajapur

CC/33/2015

Dusmanta Kumar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D of Luminous Power Technologies Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Ashok Kumar Pahil

20 Apr 2016

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 20th day of April,2016.

                                                      C.C.Case No.33 of 2015

Dusmanta Kumar Sahoo  S/O Late Kasinath Sahoo

Vill. Mukundapuri,P.O. Saragada Makundapur

Via/ P.S. Jenapur , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                     …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.M.D of Luminous power Technogies Pvt.Ltd,C.B & C-9 Community Center,Janakpuri

  New Delhi.

2. The Area Service Incharge Luminous Power ,power Technogies Pvt.Ltd of mouza

     Jajpura Holding No.529(80) Ranipatna,near Pradip science College,Balasore.

3. The Branch Service  Incharge Luminous Power Technologies Pvt.Ltd,C/O Bichitrananda

      Parida,Plot no.98,Jharpada,jail Road,Bhubaneswar.

4.Tapas kumar Lenka,Proprietor of M.I Electronics and Mobile) Main market

      Jaraka,At/P.O.Jaraka,Dist.Jajpur.

5.Tapas kumar Lenka, of Vill.Achhutpur,P.O.Dharmasala,Dist.Jajpur.

Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                                                       …………………..Opp.Parties.                                                            

For the Complainant:                                            Sri A.K.Pahil ,Advocate.

For the Opp.Party No.1, 2 and 3:                        Sri C. Samantaray, S.Nanda, L.D. Nayak, Advocates.

For the Opp.Party No.4 and 5 :                            None.         

                                                                                                                                 Date of order:   20. 04. 2016.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,   MEMBER .

                In the present dispute the petitioner alleges deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the O.Ps. due to selling a defective Inverter with battery.

                The facts relevant for the  present dispute as per complaint petition shortly are that the father of the petitioner  was suffering from kidney problem for which the petitioner  was required to visit Sum Hospital with his father for treatment about  9 to 10 times by a private Bolero since the resident of the petitioner was in a interior village  and due to non availability of electricity supply in most of the time , the petitioner purchased a Inverter  with battery from O.P.no.4  at the cost of Rs.30,000/-  as per advice of the Doctor for pulling of temperature only to save the life of his father. It is stated by the petitioner that as against such purchase though there was guarantee for 3 years for replacement and one year for repairing but after 5 months from  the date of purchase the alleged inverter became non-functional . Accordingly the petitioner lodged complaint through E-mail vide complain No.INI3A0506101 dt.17.10.13, INI3A083082 dt.28.10.13 and INI38011460 dt.06.11.13 to the company but the company  though did not take any action  on the other hand O.P.no.4 assured to solve the problem but remained silent. Finding no other way the petitioner served legal notice  on 16.11.2014  to O.Ps. out of which O.P.no.2 and 4 refused to accept the legal notice. In the mean time the father of the petitioner expired . Thereafter the petitioner finding no other way has filed the present  dispute claiming Rs.7,78,000/- which includes the expenditure of treatment of his father, cost of Inverter, mental agony and harassment.

                In the present case there are 5 O.Ps, out of these O.P.no.4  and 5 did not choose to file written version and contested the dispute. Hence, O.P.no.4  and 5 have been set-expartee vide order dt.03.09.15. but only O.P.no.1 to  3 after appearance have filed the written version  denying the allegation of the petitioner. As per written version, the O.Ps. have blamed the petitioner stating that according to the own admission of the petitioner the electricity in the village of the petitioner always was not available.  Accordingly the Inverter was not in the position to work since due to non availability of the electricity the battery of the Inverter was not in the position to be charged fully. In support of such defence the O.Ps. have also filed the service report. It is stated by the O.Ps. that after receipt of the complaint the O.Ps. have attended the same on 30.10.2013 ,04.11.2014 and 25.10.15 and as per service call report the Inverter is not functioning  due to low back up of electricity. As such there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. for which the petitioner is no way entitled for compensation. Accordingly the dispute is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                We heard the argument from both the sides. Perused the documents filed from both the sides and after perusal of the pleadings of both the parties we are inclined to dispose of the dispute as per our observation stated below :-

                1.Admittedly the petitioner has purchased the alleged Inverter with battery from O.P.no.4 who is the dealer of O.Pno.1,2 and 3 . Due to no function of Inverter the petitioner has sent advocate notice to all the O.Ps. out of which O.P.no.2 and 4 has refused to accept the legal notice or reply on the above notice .  Accordingly we are constrained to hold there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps ,in view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013(1) CPR-456-NC (MS Reeta Vs.Sikander Singh)

Wherein it is held that :

                “ non-reply of legal notice may need to adverse inference against defendant .”

                2.As regards the plea taken by the O.P.no.1,2 and 3  that the Inverter is not working due to low  back up of electricity  as has been reflected / mentioned in the service call report  is also not sustainable as per law since the service call report filed from the side of O.P.no.1,2 and 3 does not  bears the signature of the petitioner. Accordingly  we are  in the considered view that such service call report are created after thought.

                In view of the above factual aspects we are in the opinion that the law  consecutively  in petitioner’s favour for which the dispute is allowed.    

                                                                                                O R D E R

                In the net result  the dispute is allowed against the O.P no.1 , 2 ,3 and 4  as all the O.Ps are 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.100,000/- ( 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.                          

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th day of April,2016. under my hand and seal of the Forum.