DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK
Dated the 12th day of February, 2021
C.D Case No. 45 of 2020
1. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Presiding Member
2. Afsara Begum, Member
M/S FERRO ALLOYS CROPORATION Ltd.
Represented by It’s Law Officer,
Sri Prasdyumna Kishore Sahoo
At- Laxmibhawan
Po-Kuans
District- Bhadrak .................Petitioner
(Versus)
- Mr Dillip Kumar Mohanty , Proprietor,
M/S Bhabani Electrical Engineering & Trading
Plot No. 663/E/19 , New Co;ony , Gandarpur
Post- College Square Cuttack
Dist- Cuttack- 753003 ……………… Opp. Party.
Counsel For Complainant: Shri Pradyumna Kishore Sahoo
(Authorized representative).
Counsel For the OP : Ex-parte
Date of hearing: : 03.02.2021
Date of order: : 12.02.2021
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, PRESIDING MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.P.
Brief fact of the complainant is-
. 1. That, the establishment of the complainant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956 and having been engaged in mining activities in different parts of the state. It has its head office at Shreeram Bhawan, Tumsar in the State of Maharastra and its chrome ore mining Division is situated at Laxmi Bhawan, Kuans, District – Bhadrak, Odisha and its different mines are situated in the district of Jajpur, Keonjhar and Dhenkanal.
2. As per the requirement of the company one power transformer having 450 KVA, 33/0, 44 KV, Voltamp Make was installed at Ostapal mines did not function properly & needed to repair.
3. . Accordingly, company selected the O.P to repair the transformer & intimated accordingly through email on dtd. 09.01.2020 (marked as Annexure-I). Thereafter, on 10.01.2020 one Service Engineer of the O.P visited the mines at Ostapal where the transformer was installed. The service Engineer of the O.P has opined that the transformer cannot be repaired at the mines site. Accordingly, the same was sent to the workshop at Chandikhole of the O.P after dismantling it from the mines.
4. That, thereafter on 16.01.2020 the complainant sent their Dy. Manager (Electrical), Mr. S.B. Chinara to obtain estimate for repairing in presence of O.P . After necessary inspection by O.P, it was estimated the repaired value of the transformer will be Rs. 2,29,700.00. thereafter on verbal discussion with the O.P sent another revised offer for Rs. 2,15,000.00. & finally it has been settled the work to be done at the cost of Rs. 2,10,000.00 ( Letter No. BEET/FACOR/19-2002, Dtd. 22.01.2020f (Annexure-II). Thereafter, complainant released letter of order for repairing work of the transformer on dtd. 27.01.2020 vide Letter of Order No. BHF/PS-6/1036/20 (Annexure-3). As per the work order company paid an amount of Rs.2, 10,000.00 along with GST of 18%, total amounting to Rs. 2,47,473.60 on dtd. 04.02.2020 through HDFC Bank, Cuttack in favour of the O.P (Annexure-4.)
5. Thereafter the transformer sent for repairing to the workshop of the O.P. On 14.02.2020 & on the same day O.P delivered the repaired transformer to Complainant . On the next day i.e. 15.02.2020, the transformer installed at the same place where it was . During installation it was found leakage of oil from bottom portion of the transformer. Accordingly, transformer sealed with M-seal and the matter was informed to O.P.
6. That, O.P on getting the information assured the Complainant’s company to visit the mines within 2-3 days to rectify the defect. On 29.02.2020 the representative of the O.P came to the mines of the complainant to rectify the problem. In their presence the Complainant’s employee at about 3.30pm. charged the transformer. At about 8.30pm. the drop out fuse of the transformer was blown. Again the same fact informed to the O.P and he advised to remove the LT cable and change the transformer, but the same problem was further arisen. Same was also informed to the O.P. 8.
7. That, on 02.03.2020 the O.P along with his team visited the mines site of the company and checked the transformer. After proper checking the they opined that at one stud of tap charger switch unit became flashed and it needs to be replaced. Further assured to do the same within 2-3 days then it will work properly.
8. That, further through email on dtd. 05.03.2020 complainant requested the O.P to do the needful for repairing of the transformer . O.P told that it is not possible to repair at the mines site and advised to send the transformer to the workshop. Accordingly, the transformer was sent to workshop on 09.03.2020. After four days complainant received the repaired transformer and on 13.03.2020 the respondent along with his team visited mines site for installation and charging of the transformer.
9. That, during installation the HT Bush cracked. After replacement of the HT Bush, the transformer was charged for two hours and put on load which was running up to satisfaction. But after few hours of installation, the transformer D.O. fuse was blown. Thereafter the O.P team checked the transformer and found I.R. value reduced to 80 Ohm instead of 400 Mega Ohm. On the next date on 14.03.2020 the respondent assumed moisture contents may be inside the transformer and accordingly, suggested to oil filtration for increase the I.R. Value. The oil filtration work was carried out for 6-7 hours in presence of the team. After completion of the said job, it was further checked and the I.R. Value found 200Mega Ohm. Thereafter as per the instruction of the O.P the transformer was charged. Again the D.O. fuse was blown up. Finding no alternative, the team of the O.P left the transformer.
10. That, again on 16.03.2020 the teams of O.P came to the mines site of the complainant and checked the transformer and found I.R. Value of HT earth and LT earth, both are zero. The respondent assumed that the HT & LT coil are short circuited. Hence it cannot be repaired at the mines site. Accordingly they suggested for rewinding / repairing with free of cost.
11. That, on 18.03.2020 the O.P requested the complainant to send the faulty transformer to workshop and assured to refund repairing charges and cost of the faulty transformer arrangement in respect of repairing / rewinding along with the transportation charge.
12. Since then the O.P did not pay any heed to the matter, as such a notice was issued by the complainant through email dtd. 20.03.2020 describing details and to repair the same immediately, otherwise the complainant will be constrained to take legal action against him.( Annexure – 11.) The O.P in his replied on the same day stated that due to corona and lockdown situation they are not able to perform the work as (Annexure-13.) Thereafter, again on 27.05.2020 another email was issued by the complainant to the O.P that the shops and communication remain opened and they can easily carry out the work presently. But it was in vain and no action has been initiated by the O.P.
13. That, the transformer is within guarantee/warranty period, still then the O.P not solved the purpose . The cause of action arisen on 27.05.2020 when no action has been taken by the respondent to repair the transformer nor any communication was made to that effect.
14.That, Although in between Unlock-1 & Unlock-2 it has been declared and all the shops and communication made available to the people, the O.P has not taken any responsibility to repair the transformer. The behavior of the O.P is purely malicious and intentional, as a result of which the company has sustained huge loss and thereby put the In-charge /staff in mental agony and the livelihood of the employees affected. Thus the O.P is liable for huge compensation for deficiency in their service.
Notice was issued to O.P by this commission for appearance and filing of w/v . The Postal tracking report attached in the file shows that notice has been served on O.P on 24.07.2020. In view of non appearance and for non filing of w/v the O.P has been set ex- parte.
We heard the case from complainant and perused the documents . Now core issue is (I) whether the complainant is a consumer .(II) whether the O.P is deficient in rendering service to his consumer.
consumer protection Act 2019-
(7) "Consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred paymentand includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or
under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
As to our considered view complainant is a consumer within the meaning of C.P Act as the said transformer was installed for the use of the company not for the business purpose. The documents so produced by the complainant clearly shows that O.P is deficient in rendering service to his valued consumer .
In C.D.Case No. 71 of 2003 in the case of Lt. Viju Samuel Vrs M/S Associate Roadways Carriers Ltd (98 (2004) CLT 9 (O S C) decided on 6.8.2003 Hon’ble State Commission Odisha held that :
“Absence of O.Ps through notices are held sufficient – O.Ps set ex parte since previous dates- No Written version – State Commission to accept the uncontroverted statement of complainant- Assessment of loss – O.Ps liable to Pay….
Hence ordered;
ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte against O.P. The O. OP is directed to refund the cost of repairing charges along with accrued expenses amounting to Rs.2,47,473 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony & litigation ,failing which OP shall be liable to pay additional interest @ 9% PA from the date of order till the date of payment.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 12th February 2021 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
Accordingly, the complaint is allowed with cost.
