The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is M/s. Nath Enterprises, Thana Bazar, Jaleswar, O.P No.2 is the HOD Customer Care Center, Usha International Ltd., Gurgaon, O.P No.3 is the CEO of Usha International Ltd., New Delhi and O.P No.4 is Usha International Ltd., Telengapentha, Cuttack. 

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant has purchased an Usha Umang Sewing machine on 27.10.2014 bearing model No.D0814A-024465 from the O.P No.1 by paying Rs.4,950/- (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred fifty) only and obtained cash memo and warranty card. The warranty period of the said machine is for two years. After some days, the Complainant found some manufacturing defects in the said machine as the said machine did not function after installation as per user manual. So, the Complainant lodged complaint on 01.10.2014 before O.P No.4, but they remained silent about this matter. Thus, the Complainant sent an Advocate notice on 05.11.2014 to the O.Ps and on 15.11.2014, the staff of the O.P No.4 attended the call and found faults in the said machine. The Complainant approached the O.Ps many times to rectify the defects of the said machine and requested to exchange the said machine, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it, which amounts to deficiency of service and causing harassment and mental agony to the Complainant. Cause of action arose on 16.11.2014. The Complainant has prayed to exchange the sewing machine along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    3. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.Ps No.1 to 3, but they have neither appeared nor filed their written version in this case. The O.Ps No.1 to 3 are set ex-parte.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.P No.4 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.4 has further submitted that he has provided after sales service support whenever required by the Complainant. The O.P No.4 denied the fact that the Complainant lodged complaint with him on 01.10.2014 and he remained silent. As the Complainant has lodged complaint regarding some issues of Sewing machine, the said complaint was duly attended on 15.11.2014 and the product was properly inspected in presence of the Complainant and no manufacturing defect was neither complained by the Complainant nor found by the Service Engineer of O.P No.4 and as such, the product was working well. The O.P No.4 submitted that there were some issues regarding thread adjustment part which was taken care of as per requirement. The grievances of the Complainant were properly addressed and in this regard, the Complainant duly signed field service report dtd.15.11.2014. The O.P No.4 has not received any complaint from the side of the Complainant since 15.11.2014 for rectification of defects or for exchange of the said sewing machine. So, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. Neither the O.P No.4 nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of the alleged Usha Umang Sewing machine on 27.10.2014 by paying Rs.4,950/- (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred fifty) only having warranty period of two years. There was some defect in the said machine after few days and it did not function properly. So, the Complainant lodged complaint on 01.10.2014 before O.P No.4, but the O.P No.4 remained silent about this matter. After Advocate notice, the staff of O.P No.4 attended the call and found fault in the said machine, but did not repair the same, which amounts to defect in goods and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. Thus, the Complainant has filed this case praying for exchange of the sewing machine along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.Ps No.1 to 3 are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. Though O.P No.4 has filed his written version, but did not take part in hearing of this case. In the written version, he has denied about the allegation of the Complainant. According to him, he has not received any complaint from the Complainant since 15.11.2014 for rectification of defects or for exchange of the said sewing machine. In support of his argument, the Advocate for Complainant has relied upon the authority reported in I (2003) CPJ-203 (NC) in the case of BAJAJ AUTO LTD. & ORS. (Vrs.) ANURAG KAPOOR, where in it has been held by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi that when there was defect in the goods and failure to rectify the defects, replacement of the vehicle with fresh warranty period was directed by the Forum and upheld by the State Commission. However, after hearing of the Complainant and going through the case record, we are in the opinion that the alleged sewing machine was defective one and the O.Ps did not remove the defect within the warranty period, for which the O.Ps are obligatory to remove the defect in the machine or to replace the goods with a new goods of similar description, which shall be free from any defect with extended warranty period or in the alternative, the Complainant is entitled for price of the goods paid by him from the O.Ps and the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for the same as mentioned earlier along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for removal of defect in the alleged sewing machine or replacement of the said machine with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect with extended warranty period or in the alternative, they are also jointly or severally liable for return of the price of the said sewing machine of Rs.4,950/- (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred fifty) only paid by the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against O.Ps No.1 to 3 and on contest against O.P No.4 with cost. The O.Ps are jointly or severally directed to remove the defects in the alleged sewing machine or to replace the said sewing machine with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect with extended warranty period or in the alternative, they should return the price of the said sewing machine of Rs.4,950/- (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred fifty) only paid by the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.

                        Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 24th day of May, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.