Orissa

Ganjam

CC/37/2018

Sri Sabita Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Drive India Enterprises Solution Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Kailash Chandra Mishra

20 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GANJAM, BERHAMPUR.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/37/2018
( Date of Filing : 25 Jul 2018 )
 
1. Sri Sabita Rath
W/o. Sri Anil Rath, Sidha Binayak Residency, Thota Sahi, 5th lane, Lanjipalli, Berhampur, Ganjam
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Drive India Enterprises Solution Ltd
H. No. 7-2-1735/1, Opposite Fire Station, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, 500014, Telengana
2. M/s. Voltas Tata Enterprises
B-15, Arihant Plaza, 2nd Floor, Infront of Omfed Office, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, 751007, Khurda
3. M/s Baidyanath Refrigeration
Aurobindo Ngar, 1st line, Near New Bus Stand, Opp. Oxford Public School, Berhampur - 760001, Ganjam
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sri Kailash Chandra Mishra , Advocate for the Complainant 1
 EXPARTE., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 20 Jan 2021
Final Order / Judgement

DATE OF DISPOSAL: 20.01.2021

 

 

Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra,President:

               The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.   

               2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she purchased one Voltas 1.4 Ton 3 Star (2017) SAC 173 14 Copper Split Split Air conditioner in Serial No.IDU 4552122A17 MCO 32560DU45/122177E 17 HB03299 Item code 4502245/84151010, Transaction number-100064002300377 for Rs.24,990/ vide Invoice No.100064HLA18197 dated 01.03.2018.The O.P.No.1 is the manufacturer, the O.P.No.2 is the distributor for the state of Odisha and the O.P.No.3 is the Consumer Service Centre for Berhampur, Ganjam. The technician of the O.P.No.3 installed the above A.C. on 31.03.2018 and on the date of installation, the remote was totally defective hence returned back the same which has so far not been handed over to the complainant.  The aforesaid A.C. did not function and hence the same was reported to the O.P.No.3 and accordingly, the technician arrived on 28.04.2018. It was observed that blower damaged.   The complainant complained over telephone to the O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.2 time and again, there was no response for replacement of the defective Air Conditioner. It is on 19.05.2018; the technician of the O.P.No.3 again appeared, inquired the A.C. in question and observed Blower Broken and front panel broken.  In the summer to escape from the heat the complainant purchased the A.C. on 01.03.2018, installed on 31.03.2018 which started problem on 28.04.2018 i.e. just after 28 days. The A.C. in question non-functional after 28 days and even the O.P. has not provided the remote till today. Needless to say that the A.C. in question is defective one sent by the O.P.No.1 deliberately and intentionally which says unfair trade practice. For such unfair trade practice, the complainant along with her family members including son at the age of 11 years, daughter at the age of 4 years, mother-in-law at the age of 85 years suffered lot in heat summer. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps for replacement of a new conditioned/defect less Air Conditioner of the same price or to refund Rs.24,990/- , exemplary compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards  harassment and mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards the cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.

               3. Notices were issued to the Opposite Parties.  But the O.Ps did not appear and file their written version on the date fixed as such they are set exparte on 16.01.2019.

               4. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant.

she purchased one Voltas 1.4 Ton 3 Star (2017) SAC 173 14 Copper Split Split Air conditioner in Serial No.IDU 4552122A17 MCO 32560DU45/122177E 17 HB03299 Item code 4502245/84151010, Transaction number-100064002300377 for Rs.24,990/ vide Invoice No.100064HLA18197 dated 01.03.2018.The O.P.No.1 is the manufacturer, the O.P.No.2 is the distributor for the state of Odisha and the O.P.No.3 is the Consumer Service Centre for Berhampur, Ganjam. The technician of the O.P.No.3 installed the above A.C. on 31.03.2018 and on the date of installation, the remote was totally defective hence returned back the same which has so far not been handed over to the complainant.  The aforesaid A.C. did not function and hence the same was reported to the O.P.No.3 and accordingly, the technician arrived on 28.04.2018. It was observed that blower damaged.   The complainant complained over telephone to the O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.2 time and again, there was no response for replacement of the defective Air Conditioner. It is on 19.05.2018; the technician of the O.P.No.3 again appeared, inquired the A.C. in question and observed Blower Broken and front panel broken.  In the summer to escape from the heat the complainant purchased the A.C. on 01.03.2018, installed on 31.03.2018 which started problem on 28.04.2018 i.e. just after 28 days. The A.C. in question non-functional after 28 days and even the O.P. has not provided the remote till today. Needless to say that the A.C. in question is defective one sent by the O.P.No.1 deliberately and intentionally which says unfair trade practice.  Law is well settled that if the consumer is lodging complaints regularly and the producer/manufacturer attending the complaints to remove the defects regularly that amounts to manufacturing defects. In this event, the manufacturer should replace the product with new one. Non-attending of complaint after lodging and issuing of the complaint number by the O.Ps is amount to deficiencies of services.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the O.Ps failed to provide proper service to the complainant during the warranty period and also disobedience to the notice of Learned Forum. 

               6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is some deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

               7. In the result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to repair the complainant’s Split Air Conditioner in free of cost as per the complainant’s satisfaction along with fresh warranty or in alternative refund the cost of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs.24,990/-with 12% interest from the date of purchase within one month from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- only as compensation for mental agony along with Rs.2000/- only towards cost of litigation to the complainant within two months from the receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 14% interest per annum. The case is disposed of accordingly.

               The order is pronounced on this day of 20th January 2021 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.