SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: - Complainant Ashis Kumar Panigrahi has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service. Case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Kenstar Cooler, Model No.CL-KCAPCW1WFCA on dt.03.5.2015 from O.P.No.2. On dt.05.5.2015 complainant called upon the O.P.No.1 company over phone for giving demo service of the cooler at his house at Burla. But after 10 days of the telephonic call, Companies person came to his house at Burla for giving demo service and opined that cooling power of the cooler is low. He further opined that the motor fan of the cooler is defective and the same will be repaired within 4-5 days, but till the date of filing of the case, the cooler was not repaired.

2. The complainant again intimated the matter to the O.P.No.1 over phone and got a complaint No.BHU2605150003 and told that within 72 hours of the call the cooler will be repaired, which was again resulted into a false promise. Complainant also intimated the O.P.No.2 regarding the problem hewas facing, but the O.P.No.2 also did not listen to his complaint and no rectification was made to the cooler for smooth running. So, re rented a cooler from the tent house on daily payment of Rs.100/-.

1. Finding no other way, complainant approached this Forum  with prayer to direct the O.Ps to compensate him for causing mental agony and sufferings and deficiency in service. Complainant has filed Xerox copies of the warranty card, one purchase voucher No.4527 dated.03.5.2015 of Image Video House, Bolangir, and 2 copies of Indian Post. In down loads from the computer, which shows that the articles were delivered to the O.Ps.
2. Notices were sent to both the O.Ps and service is sufficient. But the O.Ps failed to appear and contest the proceeding. Hence, they were set ex-pate on 27.7.2015 and the case was posted for ex-parte hearing.
3. Complainant is present at the time of hearing and filed an affidavit dated.19.8.2015 as evidentialproof of the case filed by him and submitted that till this date the cooler has not been repaired. We find that complainant has filed an affidavit giving all the details and also filed copies of certain documents. O.Ps, in spite of receipt of notices have chosen to set away from the proceeding and this indirectly proves that they have nothing to say over the allegations made by the complainant regarding non-repair of the cooler and deficiency in service.
4. Complainant has not filed any bill in order to support his allegation that he has hired a cooler from tent house. He has also not averred for how many days he had hired the cooler, hence this allegation of hiring of cooler is not believable in absence of any supporting document.
5. The allegation regarding defect in the cooler and not being serviced by the O.Ps are established.As per opinion of the service personnel of O.P.No.1, the cooling capacity of the cooler is low and the motor fan was defective. But the O.Ps failed to repair the same and provide proper service to the complainant.
6. The defective cooler was attended to by the personnel of the O.Ps at Burla , so the case is coming within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. The O.Ps failed to rectify the defects found in the cooler after few days of the sale. So, we hold that the cooler sold to the complainant is having inherent manufacturing defects, which needs to be replaced with new one free of defect.                           
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we hold both the O.Ps jointly and severally liable for the suffering caused to the complainant and direct the O.Ps to replace a new cooler to the complainant free of defect and take back the old defective one at their own cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to refund the purchase price of the cooler to the complainant with interest  9(Nine) per cent  per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment. No order is passed as to payment of any compensation or costs.