Delhi

New Delhi

CC/358/2013

Rakesh Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/358/13                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Rakesh Mittal,

S/o Sh. G.C Mittal,

R/o A-25, Pandara Road,

New Delhi-03

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

        C-8 & C-9, Community Center,

        Behind Janak Cinema, Pankha Road,

        Janakpuri, New Delhi-58

 

2. Ajay Enterprises,

        Through its Proprietor/Partner,

        C1/B, Green park Extension, Opp. Indian Oil Bhavan, New Delhi-16

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The Complainant influenced by advertisement and brand name of Luminous Inverters purchased one single battery inverter costing Rs.14,000/- from  OP1 on 20.04.11, which is not in dispute. The inverter had minimal use, due to regular supply in area of Pandara road, where he lived. He found that whenever on rare occasions he used it, it showed overload sign and did not work, from the beginning. He brought it to notice of OP1 on 13.06.12, whose service executive on 14.06.12, found inverter non-working. He again reported fault on 29.06.12. The engineer on 29.06.12, changed PCB, but complainant found it not working on actual power cut. He made complaint again on 11.07.12 and technician reported a manufacturing defect in the inverter. The problem continued till 27.12.12. On checking next day, it showed overload when main lights were off. Service report is on record.

The complainant being totally unsatisfied with inverter sent a legal notice demanding return of money. The OP offered replacement but complainant smelt it as sub-standard product in market, and did not want any fresh product.  The OP did not return the price. Thus, this complaint.

The OP appeared through its legal Manager, without any reply. He was asked to replace it on 16.12.13. However, since there was no report on its functioning, complainant was asked to file an affidavit on its functioning. The complainant has filed an affidavit, which shows that he does not now has any faith in the inverter marketed by OP as he has found it substandard product, which has caused him great mental discomfort.

We have heard both the parties. We cannot force upon consumer a product, which he has not found satisfactory. In these circumstances, OP is directed to return the price of Rs.14,000/- and collect the inverter offered for replacement. The complainant may also himself leave the inverter with OP, and file execution for price, if not paid. We award compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 20.10.2015.

 

                                            

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER