Haryana

Ambala

CC/190/2018

Feroz Alam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micro Tek Power - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 190 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :   12.06.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :   16.09.2019.

 

Feroz Alam son of Shri Altaf, aged about 40 years, r/o H.No.8, Lucky Nagar, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Microtek Power, H-57, Udyog Nagar, Main Rohtak Road, Delhi-110041, through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Ajanta Battery Service, 121, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

           ..…..Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                                                

Present:       Shri Ajay Trehan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Lakhwinder Singh, Authorized Representative for OP              No.1.

OP No.2 ex-parte.                  

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund Rs.16,400/- alongwith up-to-date interest.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

                   Brief facts of the case are that on 16.06.2016, the complainant had purchased the Invertor, make Microtek Power 13BDDMS 22885 for Rs.4200/- and Exide Battery IM-10000 (150HG), FE02-IM10000, 3RH051911015093 of Rs.12,200/-, total amounting Rs.16,400/- vide Bill No.12099 from the OP No.2. The said invertor was installed at the residence of complainant at Saharanpur by the employee of the OP No.2. At the time of purchasing the said invertor, the OP No.2 gave an assurance regarding the guarantee/warranty of two years and that the invertor will give proper working. In the month of March/April 2018, the said invertor started/created the problem and was not working properly. In this regard, he informed the OP No.2, who advised him to call on the company toll free No.18001024447. Thereafter, employee of the OP No.1 checked the invertor and found that the warranty card of said invertor has already been expired in the year 2015, because the said invertor was manufactured in the year 2013. The OP No.2 had sold the second hand invertor after getting it repaired prior to sell out the said to him and issued the bill dated 16.06.2016 and charged the price of said invertor as new branded invertor instead of second hand. Thereafter, on the advise of the OP No.2, he brought the said invertor at his residence at Ambala and after checking the same, the OPs No.1 & 2 found that the said invertor is very old one and repaired the same is out of warranty period. The OP No.2 intentionally and deliberately cheated the complainant by playing a big fraud with him and have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, representative of OP No.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is submitted that neither there is any allegation against the OP No.1 nor it is authorized seller/distributor of the product in question. Bare perusal of the complaint, it is found that the OP No.2 sold an old invertor/UPS-EB as a new invertor/UPS-EB and there is sole and total allegations against the OP No.2 only. The complaint is bad for non-impleading the manufacturer of the battery as the system is made up of two components i.e. invertor/UPS-EB and battery. On receipt of a repair request, technician of OP No.1 visited the site and checked the invertor/UPS-EB and told the complainant that the invertor/UPS-EB is very old and out of warranty. There is no deficiency on its part and the complaint filed against it, may be dismissed with costs.

                    Upon notice, OP No.2 failed to appear in person or through counsel on 26.10.2018 and consequently, it was proceeded against ex parte on that date by this Forum.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith document as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, Authorized Representative of OP No.1 tendered his affidavit as Annexure OP1/A alongwith document Annexure OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of the OP No.1 and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased the inverter/battery from the OP No.2 with two years warranty/guarantee vide bill No.12099 dated 16.06.2016 (Annexure C-1). The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP No.2 cheated the complainant by selling the second hand invertor manufactured in the year 2013 by saying to be manufactured in the year 2016. On the other hand, the authorized representative of the OP No.1 has mainly argued that the OP No.2 sold an old invertor/UPS-EB as a new invertor/UPS-EB and there is sole and total allegations against the OP No.2 only, as such, complaint filed against it may be dismissed. He also made a separate statement in this regard on 06.09.2019 before this Forum that the inverter Microtek was manufactured in the year 2013. From the perusal of inspection report dated 20.07.2018 issued by Shri Ravinder Singh Punia, Local Commissioner, Polytechnic, Ambala City, it is clear that the inverter in question stopped working and became dead on 15.03.2018 i.e. within the two years warranty/guarantee period from its purchase. It is also clear from the statement of the representative of OP No.1 that the OP No.2 had cheated the complainant by selling the old inverter manufactured in the year 2013 by saying to be manufactured in the year 2016. It may be stated here that none has contested the complaint on behalf of OP No.1, as it was proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and unchallenged against the OP No.2 and thus, we have no other option, except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. Hence, the OP No.2 is deficient in providing the services to the complainant. In his complaint, the complainant sought refund the cost of the inverter/battery. In this regard, we derive support from the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in the case of Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Ors., 2014 (1) CLT, 588, wherein, it has been held that:

“Failure of the compressor of the AC within 2-3 Months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defect and principle of res ipsa loquitur should have been applied. It is further held that in the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because the replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in the company’s product. If the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous.

6.                Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down by the superior Fora in the aforesaid case and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the OP No.2 had cheated the complainant by selling the old model inverter manufactured in the year 2013 by saying to be manufactured in the year 2016, therefore, it is liable to refund him the cost of the inverter/battery in question alongwith compensation and litigation charges. Since there is no specific allegation against the OP No.1 and even it has no role to play in the dispute, therefore, complaint against OP No.1 is also liable to be dismissed.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.1 and allow the same against the OP No.2 and direct it in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.16,400/-, the cost of the inverter/battery in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :16.09.2019.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                  (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                            Member                            President