DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.03.2010.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 26.10.2016.
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (for short, the O.Ps) and redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant holding the post of Managing Director of Hotel Moti Pvt. Ltd. running the Hotel Business taking loan from the different Banks and financial organizations to maintain his livelihood and his family. Accordingly the complainant installed different electronics and electrical appliances for smooth management of the Hotel. During course of the business, the O.P. approached to the complainant for installation of EPABX system and after due consultant the O.P. installed the said system in the said Hotel on dated 1.11.2009 and took Rs.25,000/- from the complainant towards cost of the EPABX system. Further the O.P. agreed to give A.M.C. for a period of one year over all maintenance of the electronics and electrical appliances/system installed in the hotel, to that effect the O.P. received the annual maintenance charge from the complainant agreeing to the condition mentioned therein. While the matter stood thus, the aforesaid EPABX system when not functioned properly, the complainant lodged a complaint before the O.P. mentioning the defects. After receipt of the complain, the O.P. did not come forward to repair the same, at lasts the complainant issued the registered notice on 20.12.2009 to O.P. for repair the same as the said system is covering under the warranty period. Even after receipt of the notice, the O.P. did not turn off to repair the same and not come forward to attend the annual maintenance (AMC) of the entire systems of the hotel though the O.P. has agreed to attend the annual maintenance of the aforesaid systems which has installed in the hotel for the same the O.P. has received the annual maintenance charges from the complainant. Due to adamant, inaction and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant sustained heavy financial loss and suffering from mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to install a new EPABX system in place of defective one, to give proper annual maintenance service and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were duly served to O.P.No.1 and 2. Several opportunities were given to O.P.No.2; nobody appeared on his behalf either in person or through his counsel. Hence the O.P.No.2 declared set exparte on dated 9.9.2010.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 filed version through his advocate on dated 27.5.2010. It is stated the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all true and the complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations as are not specifically admitted herein. The complainant is the Managing Director of the Hotel Moti and that he did the Hotel Business taking loan from public and private finance Ltd. And that he installed different electrical and electronics appliances for smooth functioning of the Hotel etc. may be true. The O.P.No.1 installed the EPABX system in the Hotel on 1.11.2009 by taking Rs.22,000/- from the complainant towards cost of the system etc. are true. O.P.No.1 agreed to give AMC for a period of one year for the overall maintenance of electroniO.P.No.1 received annual maintenance charge from the complainant etc. are vague and not true. Infact the O.P.No.1 installed the EPABX system in the hotel since ten years. This OP was attending the complains as and when made by the complaint in respect of EPABX system only as the AMC stands for EPABX only. This OP has nothing to do with the maintenance of electrical systems as he has not done any wiring system in the hotel and he has not been paid anything for the maintenance of electronics and electrical system. The allegation made in para-II- of the petition that the O.P.No.1 did not repair the EPABX system though complaint was made and hence registered notice dated 20.12.2009 was issued and that after receipt of the alleged notice the O.P. did not come forward to take repair work etc. are false and baseless and the complainant is puts to strict proof of the same. This OP was attending all the complaints regularly with regard to EPBAX system only not others. After repair, the complainant was acknowledging the same by endorsing on the complain book maintained by the complainant. This O.P.No.1 submitted that it is one of the authorized channel partner of O.P.No.2. It has been doing business successfully for the last ten years without any remark. The O.P.No.1 has installed EPBAX system in the Collectorate of Chhatrapur and Bhabanipatna and All India Radio Office Cuttack and Bhabanipatna. After installation the O.P.No.1 has been attending the complains regularly made by the aforesaid Govt. offices. So far they have not questioned to the service provided by the O.P.No.1. As the matter stood that the complainant requested the O.P.No.1 to install the EPBAX system in his hotel for smooth functioning of the same. Accordingly O.P.No.1 installed EPBAX system in the hotel and received Rs.22,000/- out of Rs.26,000/-. Prior to installation of EPBAX system, the entire wiring system in the hotel was done by BSNL, in the year 1982. As the wiring system was in a damaged condition the O.P.No.1 advised the complainant to change the same. However the complainant did not pay any heed to the advice of the O.P.No.1. After installation the O.P.No.1 was regular attending the complaint as soon as made by the complainant. The founder director Sri Ramesh Sabat was always praising the O.P.No.1 for the services provided by him. He never complained against the O.P.No.1 during the last ten years. As a matter of fact, the O.P.No.1 demanded the balance amount of Rs.4,000/- towards the sale price of EPBAX system. The complainant to grab said amount made all these false and baseless allegations against the O.P.No.1 defaming the good will and reputation of its business. Further the complainant made the O.P.No.1 to suffer mentally and physically by sending SMS etc. Hence the O.P.No.1 is contemplating to file defamation case against the complainant for damaging the reputation and good will of his business. The O.P.No.1 has not supplied any Fax and inter instruments to the complainant. The O.P.No.1 is no way connected with the wiring system of the hotel as no work order nor any payment was made by the complainant. The O.P.No.1 has given suitable replies to the notice given by the complainant on different dates. There is no cause of action on the dates mention in the petition. Hence the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
5. On the date of hearing of the consumer dispute, we heard arguments and gone through the complaint petition, written version of O.P.No.1, written argument of complainant and documents of complainant available in the record. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his case stating that he is holding the post of Managing Director of Hotel Moti Pvt. Ltd. running the Hotel Business taking loan from the different Banks and financial organizations to maintain his livelihood and his family. The O.P.No.1 contended that the complainant was not a consumer as the EPBAX system was purchased by the complainant for business purpose i.e. for commercial purpose. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in C.P.Moosa versus Chowgle Industries Ltd 2001 CPJ -3-9-NC; 2001 CPR -9-92-NC: holds that the appellant had purchased EPBAX system for his hotel with warranty and annual maintenance contract. There was deficiency of service during warranty period and AMC period. The National Commission held that the case falls under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) and appellant entitled to compensation. The Hon’ble National Commission have clearly delineated the scenarios under which consumer complaint are maintainable even where the goods are meant for commercial purpose. Even the person who purchases goods for commercial purpose is also a consumer if the defects in the goods purchased are found during the warranty period.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only to the complainant for supply of defective EPABX system within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant may recover the amount U/S 27 or 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No order as to cost and compensation. The consumer dispute is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 26th October 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. Copy of order be sent by Registered post to the parties free of cost.
This order be sent to server www.confonet.nic.in. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.
