Orissa

Rayagada

CC/51/2016

Sri Gangadhar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s MTEK Power - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 Oct 2016

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                C.C. Case  No.51/ 2016.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

Sri Gangadhar Rath ,S/o late Bhagirathi Rath, aged about 60 years, Resident of Nehru Nagar,,3^rd Lane,Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha,765001.

                                                                                                                          ………Complainant

Vrs.

 

1. M/s MTEK POWER,D-7,Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041.
2. M/s Vijaya Sales Corporation, Berhampur, Po/Ps Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam, Odisha.
3. M/s Jain Enterprises, Axis Bank Road, New Colony, Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist.aRAyagada,Odisha,765001.                                                                                                                                                                                                ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P No.1:  Self

For the O.P No.2 & 3: Set Exparte

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one MTEK Power  Battery  vide Cash Receipt No.98 dt.25.12.2013 having a guarantee for two years but the said inverter has started troubling within six months of its installation by O.P 3.  The O.P 3 used  check the problem but the defects could ;not be removed. The engineer of the O.p 1  and 2 inspected the same and given a report about its defect and stated that there is no battery available in the stock and asked the complainant to wait. The complainant despatched the batteries to the O.p2 for its replacement but till today it is not replaced . As such the O.ps have violated the  guarantee conditions  for which the  complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss. Hence, prayed to direct the O.ps to replace the batteries immediately or pay  back the amount of Rs.12,500/-  along with cash compensation of Rs.15,000/-  for mental agony  with cost of litigation and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper. Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, though   the O.p 1 appeared through  and filed written version and  the O.p 2 & 3  failed to file written version,  as such the O.P 2 & 3 were set Ex- parte.

                        It is submitted by the O.P 1 that  the batter was containing apro-rata warranty for 48 months. In this warranty period only replacement can be done within  period of 30 months from the date of purchaser from the authorized dealer and rest of the period discount of 20% shall be availed by customer on purchase of other new battery from authorized dealer.  The present complaint is based upon false and frivolous grounds filed only with motive to extort money from the O.ps. The complainant concealed the fact that the invoice copy has been prepared by the O.P 3 later on, it is quite important and as per the policy of O.p 1 to verify the invoice copy of the dealer for the genuinity of the product the O.P 3 was not agreed to show the bill book for the purpose of verification only as per the policy of the O.p 1 which creates the line of doubt in the mind of the )O.P No.1 hence the replacement had been rejected by the O.P 1  Upon verification  process initiated by engineer of O.P 1, the O.P 3 had also denied to verify the invoice copy as per  bill book. The complainant  has shown his malafide intentions by providing fake invoice copy and intend to take undue and illegal benefits from the O.ps. Hence, complainant is not entitled to get the replacement of the battery from the O.P 1.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  invertor   to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the same   since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the invertor was found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the invertor   require  servicing  within six months of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective invertor   is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the invertor   which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects within six months of its purchase  and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the invertor  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the invertor  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss  to which the O.p 2 & 3  are liable to pay as  we found guilty in providing after sale service to the complainant. Hence,  it is ordered.

 

                                            

 

                                          ORDER

                        The  Opposite Parties  2 & 3   are directed to   refund the cost of invertor  i.e. Rs.12,500/-   and pay  cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. If the Ops fails to comply the above order   within one month from the date of receipt of this order, they are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed. We do not pass any order against O.P 1.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 31^st  day of  August,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Battery test replacement form
2. Xerox copy of Cash/Credit Bill No.98 dt.25.12.2013

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President