PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.-55/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Santosh Viswakarma,

S/O- Tulasi Viswakarma,

R/O-Bhalupali, Sankarma, Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768006, Odisha.                                    ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

M/S TATSUNO India Pvt. Ltd.

B-31 & B-32, MIDC, Industrial Area, Toloja,

Dist-Raigad-410208, Maharastra                                  ..…....……….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. R.Gupta, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P.                        :- Sri. M.K. Gupta & Associates

Date of Filing:16.02.2024,  Date of Hearing :06.05.2024  Date of Judgement : 27.05.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment, do his business of repairing of tanker in the name & style “Satish Fabrication” at New Rampella, Rengali Sambalpur. The OP is the manufacturer and supplier of fuel dispensing unit carring out business all over India. The Complainant has purchased one fuel dispensing unit from the OP on dtd. 8.11.2023 amounting to Rs. 1,60,000/-. The Complainant also paid expenses amounting Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation of the said fuel dispensing unit from Raigad, Maharashtra. At the time of installation it is found that the outlet of the dispensing unit is ¾ inch instead of the order for 1 inch and so also output power supply was 230 volt AC instead of 12 Volt DC. After complain of breakdown of the said Fuel dispensing unit the OP deputed its technician. The said technicians visited so many times to rectify the defects, but they failed to do so. The Complainant having no other way e-mail to the OP to refund the amount by taking the said dispensing unit as the technician could not rectify the same.   After receiving the said e-mail from the Complainant, the OP again send the technicians for breakdown service. The technicians after inspecting the said dispensing unit find the observation on dt. 17.01.2024 that “Attend and check & found that the dispensing unit not working due to high flow issue. The LPM issue resolve by the dealer. Then take pump test found that nozzle not working due to level ossiy issue and flow meter not working in present mode. When solenoid valve slow down active flow meter not working. One No flow meter required”. The OP did not repair or replace the said Fuel dispensing unit for which the OP to avoid loss, purchased another Fuel dispensing unit from other company. The Complainant was so tensed following this unfair trade practices by the OP and suffered with monetary loss and also experienced the worst servicing facility by the OP.
2. The Version of the OP is that after receiving the complaint from the Complainant, the OP sent their technicians on 21.12.2023, 05.01.2024 and 17.01.2024 and after inspection of the said device, they detected the defects and raised demand of some parts from the OP. The OP has tried its level best to provide their service after the sale of goods. On the complaint of the Complainant, the Engineers of the OP have done all requirement of the consumer without any cost. This shows how the best services have been provided to a Complainant. The claim of supplying a defective dispenser is unfounded and without merit. The supplied dispensing unit underwent testing and was found to be free of defects, as confirmed by the test report. Furthermore, the OP has consistently collaborated with the Complainant in addressing all complaints. Consequently, this does not qualify as a deficiency in service. Hence, this OP is not liable to pay for any financial losses, harassment or mental agony to the Complainant.
3. From the records and evidences, it is observed that the OP could not rectify the defect of the supplied dispensing unit of the Complainant for which the Complainant suffered a lot of financial loss and was compelled to purchase a new fuel dispensing unit of another company. Hence deficiency in service found against the OP. Accordingly it is ordered.

ORDER

The case is disposed of on contest. The O.P is directed to refund Rs. 1,60,000/- towards the cost of the Fuel dispensing unit along with transportation charges of Rs. 10,000/-, to pay Rs.2,00, 000/- towards compensation for harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation cost to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 27^th day of May, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.