DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KEONJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 33 OF 2021
Dillip kumar Maharana.aged about 59 years,
S/O-Narayan Maharana,At/Po/Ps-Ghasipura,Anandapur,
Dist-Keonjhar,Pin-758015, Odisha Mobile-No-7008478363
Versus
1.M/s Tarini Motors,N.H-20,Salapada-by-pass.
At/Po-Salapada,Ps-Ghasipura,Dist-Keonjhar,Pin-758020 Mob- 9437196039
2. Electro traders (Luminous Care) At - Chorda, Po/Ps-Jajpur Road,
Dist-Jajpur, Odisha-755019(9348108722
3. Luminous power technologies private Ltd.
Represented by its Managing Director,
Corporate Office, Plot No-150, Sector-44,
Gurugaon, Haryana,Pin-122003
Present:
Biranchi Narayan Patra, President
Sri Bharat Bhusan Das (Member)
Advocate for complainant- Tusarkanta Samanta & associates
Advocate for Op1, Op2 & Op3 - Set Ex-parte
Date of Filing - 07.09.2021 Date of Order- 30.06.2022
B.N Patra (President)
Brief facts of this case is that , the complainant had purchased a Luminous Battery from OP. No-1 for use in domestic purpose vide Bill No-24, dtd 15.06.2021 vide ILTT26026012V-220AC, Sl.No-QAK34711021761. The same battery was fitted by technician authorized by company with Luminous Inverter. It was found the functioning of the battery to be un-satisfactory. So the complainant reported verbally, but the dealer only gave assurance to be corrected by engineer .But all of a sudden on 06.08.2021 the battery stopped functioning and power supplied was seized. The complainant immediately intimated the OP. NO-1 and as per his advice lodged complained on TOLL–FREE NO-18001033039. There after their service tag sent by OP.No-2 attended the complaint No.-4011764374 of complainant on dtd.08.08.2021 .But failed to provide satisfactory service. The OP.No-1 did not listen the complainant’s queries for which the complainant lodged complain through e-mail to customer support division in e-mail No. < @ luminous India.com on dtd.11.08.2021 stating non-functioning of Luminous battery and claimed for replace of battery. But no one attended, and again reminder was sent on 14.08.2021 but O.P neither solved the problem nor make arrangement to replace of battery.
The O.P sent a mail rejecting the claim, for which the petitioner files this case against the Ops for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant relied documents like Tax invoice, e - mail correspondence and other documents.
In the above allegation the case was admitted and notice issued to Ops. But no one appeared before the commission to contest their case. After perusal of case record it is found that, notice to Ops is sufficient served .So; Ops are set ex-parte.
In this case , there is no doubt that the complainant had purchased a Luminous battery from OP.No-1, the authorized dealer with Tax Invoice for the sum of Rs.19,500/- so , he is a consumer of Ops and it is within jurisdiction of this commission. The cause of action arose on 06.08.2021 on the date the battery stop functioning. Before coming to decide the case it is necessary to attend the following issues:-
- Whether any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service is occurred by Ops
- What relief the complainant is entitled to get or not
ISSUE No.-1The complainant verbally complained before the OP NO.-1 about the defective luminous battery but the OP No-1 only gave assurance.
On dtd.06.08.2021 the battery created sound and stopped functioning and the power supply got seized .The matter was intimated immediately to OP.No-1 and the complain was lodged on their TOLL-FREE No-18001033039 on the same day.
On dtd.08.08.2021 one service engineer attended the defective battery but his service was not satisfactory. On dtd.11.08.2021 and 14.08.2021 the complainant made complain further to their email but finally on dtd.16.08.2021 the Ops company rejected the complain simply saying that it is a warranty void case.
It is presumed that the Luminous battery was under warranty period . The OPs companyhad notproperly gave service to the complainant, only made discussion over phone call and simply rejected saying product was mis-handled or broken and which is not covered under warranty conditions .The opsare not contested this casebefore this commissionso, they are set ex-parteand they have nothing to say in this case.
It is cleared that Ops have made deficiency of service and used unfair trade practice and caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. The purpose for which the luminous battery was purchased by the complainant was not fulfilled.Issue No.-1 is cleared.
Issue No-2- The complainant has prayed for relief as claimed in their petition for refund of Rs.19, 500/-, the purchase value and Rs.19,500/-for monetary loss and Rs.21000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses .
In the said case the complainant is entitled to get relief Rs.19500/-purchasevalue of said batteryand Rs.5000/- formental agony and litigation expenses .
All the above issues are discussed and clarified .Hence order.
O R D E R
The Ops are directedto replace the new one Luminous battery instead of old onebattery to complainant or if, failedit is directed to Opsto pay the purchase value of battery Rs.19,500/-to the complainantjointly andseverallyand Rs.5,000/- for mental agonyandcost of litigation within 30 daysof receipt of this order. If failed on default 6% interest P.A will be applicable for totalamount of (Rs.19,500/- + Rs 5000/-) = Rs 24000/-till the final realization.
The order pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 30.06.2022.
Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
Pronounced on 30.06.2022
I agree
( Sri B. B. Das) ( B.N Patra )
Member (President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
( B.N Patra )
(President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar
