BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO- 38/2016
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President,
Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Surendra Kumar Hota,
S/O- Krishna Chandra Hota,
R/O- Jyoti Vihar,Sambalpur University,Burla,
P.O/P.s/Tahasil/Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
1. Proprietor,
Mishra Electricals,Daily Market,Burla,
P.O/P/S-Burla,Tahsil/Dist-Sambalpur.
2. CANAN Technologies(P)Ltd,
C/O- M/S Sainath Enterprisers,
B-5,Subash Chandra Bose Marg,
Bhubaneswar-6. ……OPP.Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Sri A.K.Trpathy, Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P-1 :- None
- For the O.P-2 :- None.
DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 24.02.2021
SMITA TRIPATHY,MEMBER(W)-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant stated that he has purchased a Kinetiser Heater(Canan)from the O.P-1 for his domestic use having serial no- KTR12B400387 dtd. 22.12.2012 for Rs4,500/- vide bill no-9015 dated 22.12.2012. On dtd.02.04.2013 as the Heater did not function properly due to some fault in the Auto Cut for which the Complainant brought the said defective Heater to the O.P-1on the same day. The O.P-1 asked the Complainant to bring the Heater to his shop and assured him to repair it within three days. On dtd.03.04.2013 the Complainant brought the Heater with the warranty card and handed over the same to the O.P-1 but when he reached at the shop of the O.P-1 on dtd.07.04.2013, the O.P-1 told him that the Heater was not repaired and it will take some more days and told that he will inform the Complainant when it is repaired. But after several approaches the O.P-1 neither repaired the said Heater nor handed over it to the Complainant. On dtd. 07.05.2013, the Complainant served a pleader notice to the O.P-1 refund the cost of the Heater amounting to Rs.4,500/-to him or replace the defective Heater with a new one. Despite receiving the legal notice on dtd.08.05.2013 the O.P-1 did not bother to reply against the notice which amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency in Service for which he should pay compensation to the Complainant along with all legal benefits. Also the Complainant has filed a petition U/S-5 of Limitation Act stating the reason for delay in filling the Consumer Complaint that he was suffering from “BAATA” and was undergoing “TAILA” treatment by Kabiraj Pradeep Pradhan at Dhanupali, Sambalpur from dtd.15.03.2015 to dtd.23.04.2016. As the date 24.04.2016 was Sunday he has filed the case on dtd. 25.04.2016(Monday) and prayed to condone the delay in filling the Complaint.
The O.P-1&2, despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1&2 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted ex-parte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new Kinetiser Heater(Canan) from the O.P-1on payment on payment of Rs.4,500/- from the O.P-1 with a promise to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said Heater after using the same for approximately four months within the warranty period. But despites several visits to the O.P-1, he could not get it repaired through the Authorised service centre as he (the dealer) has not provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the said Heater was within warranty period. The O.P-1 has failed to remove defects from the said Heater having some manufacturing defects. But OP-1 neither repaired it properly nor did he replaced the defective Heater and even not handed over the defective Heater to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. This matter has been well settled in the case of HCL Office Automation Ltd. vs Sureman Prasad And Ors. on 7 December, 2006 decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal, New Delhi.Hence the O.Ps have committed “Deficiency in Service” Consumer Protection Act-2019, by not providing proper services to the Complainant.
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.4,500/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the Kinetiser Heater(Canan). He is further directed to pay Rs.8,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; and to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 24th day of February-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER.(W) .
Dictated and Corrected
By me.
-Sd/-
MEMBER.(W)
