DATE OF FILING: 19.6.2014.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 27.01.2017
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Chloride Home UPS Pure shine 850 VA inverter, Sl. No. 0850DPS1112011000578 worth Rs.4300/- on 16.01.2012 from O.P.No.1 vide invoice No.12 dated 16.01.2012 with two years warranty on the same. The O.P.No.2 is the Head office who authorized the O.P.No.1 as it its dealer for the UPS. Due to inverting problem of the above said chloride Home UPS, the complainant lodged a complaint on 18.11.2013 to the O.P.No.2. The complaint was registered as EOIN00002841. But, the O.P.No.1 did not give any attention to the above complaint. The complainant lodged another complaint on 19.12.2013 vide Registration No. EOIN00003000 to the O.P.No.2. Thereafter the service engineer attended the complaint on 21.12.2013 and found problem in inverter and mentioned in the service report as no inverting and also not repairable. He advised to shift the UPS to Berhampur for replacement. Accordingly, the complainant shifted the UPS to the O.P.No.1. Bu no such replacement has been made by the O.P.No.1 so far. Registered notice dated 20.2.2014 of advocate Sri Siba Prasad Bahinipati on behalf of the complainant was sent to the O.P.No.1 who received the same but did not give any reply. A copy of the said notice was also forwarded to the O.P.No.2. Despite repeated approaches of the complainant, the O.P.No.1 & 2 did not replace the inverter and thereby causing deficiency of service to the complainant. The warranty period of the UPS inverter was for two years i.e. from 16.1.2012 to 15.1.2014. The last complaint lodged to the O.P.No.1 and 2 is on 29.12.2013 which was followed by personal approaches and registered notice. Due to deficiency of service of the O.P.No.1 & 2 the complainant has faced a monetary loss of Rs.30,000/- for loss of business. The complainant has also suffered from mental sufferings which the value at Rs.20,000/-. The O.P.No.1 has sold the UPS to the complainant for value of Rs.4300/-. The O.P.No.1 and 2 have earned the liability of replacing the UPS and to pay damages of Rs.50,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P.No.1 & 2 to replace a new Chloride Home UPS Inverter in place of the manufacturing defective Chloride Home UPS Pure shine 850VA Inverter and also grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to supply of any UPS inverter, grant cost of the case and to grant any such relief in the interest of justice.
The complainant filed the following documents in support of his case.
A. Photocopy of warranty card of CHLORIDE power system Sl No. 0850DPS1112011000578.
B. Photocopy of Field Service report dated 6.12.2013.
C. Photocopy of Field Service report dated 21.12.2013.
D. Photocopy of cash receipt of Laxmi Batteries service vide invoice No. 12 dated 16.01.2012 for Chloride Home UPS.
E. Photocopy of cash receipt of Laxmi Batteries service vide invoice No. 13 dated 16.01.2012.
F. Photocopy of Legal notice with AD and the registration of postal slip.
G. Photocopy of post card.
3. Notices were duly served on the O.P. Nos 1 & 2. O.P.No.1 did not appear in the case and declared as exparte on dated 09.08.2016. The O.P.No.2 though appeared but did not file any written version and did not contest in this case, hence declared set exparte on 09.08.2016.
4. We heard the exparte argument from the sides of the complainant and perused the documents available in the case record. We found that the purchase of Chloride Home UPS Pure shine 850VA Inverter from O.P.No.1 is proved through the copy of retail invoice bearing No. 12 dated 16.1.2012 annexed in the case record. Again the said UPS was under two years warranty period is proved through the warranty card annexed in the case record. It is seen from the complaint petition is that after using the UPS (Inverter) for about one year ten months, the said UPS started given problem. The complainant had placed his grievance for the same before the O.Ps requesting him to repair the same as it is within the warranty period. Copy of the Field Service Report No. 0155 and 0119 further proved that, the UPS has become defective and this has been received for repair within the warranty period. Although the service engineer attended the complainant on dated 21.12.2013 and found problem in the inverter and mentioned in the service report as no inverting and also not repairable and advised to the complainant to shift the UPS to Berhampur for replacement. But no such replacement has been made by the O.Ps which amounts to utter deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps to the customer. Because a purchase occurred with some hope and aspirations which are not fulfilled in the case of the complainant and the purchaser suffered problem for such purchase. It is the responsibility of the O.Ps to assist the purchaser to proceed with the process when grievance occurred to them, but no such responsibility had exercised by the O.Ps in the instant case. Further, although notice were duly served on the O.P.No.1 and 2. The O.P.No.1 did not appear and O.P.No.2 though appeared did not file his version and also failed to adduce any evidence before this Forum. The Forum views that if the O.Ps not given due regards to the court proceeding, what kind of attention he would be given to the common man. On the whole, it is well understood that the O.Ps remained silent in the matter and not responded to the complainant for a remedy for a pretty long period reveals that they have malafide intention. In the absence of O.P. in the case given weightage to grievance of the complainant and the Forum accepted the version of the complainant. The Forum also come to a conclusion that gross negligence towards duties and responsibilities were adopted by the O.Ps which resulted discomforts and inconvenience on the part of the complainant which comes under the latches of deficiency in service. The complainant suffered the inconvenience besides mental agony and pain. Hence, gross negligence and deficiency in service lies with the O.Ps and they are liable to jointly and severally to compensate the complainant from what he suffered. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the complaint and documents placed before us, we arrive at the conclusion that Chloride Home UPS (Inverter)in question was defective and need replacement. Hence order.
5. In the result we direct the Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable to replace a new UPS (inverter) of the same model in place of defective one or to refund the cost of the UPS (Inverter) of Rs.4300/- (Rupees Four Thousand Three Hundred) only alongwith compensation of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry 9% interest till realization. The complainant is directed to return the defective UPS (Inverter) to the O.P.No.1 at the time of receiving new UPS (Inverter). The case is disposed of accordingly.
6. The order is pronounced on this day of 27th January 2017 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
