| Complaint Case No. 33/2016 | | ( Date of Filing : 24 Dec 2016 ) |
| | | | 1. Aswini Mondal | | Vill.Mpv.4 Malkangiri. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. M/S. Sai Enterprises | | Main Road Malkangiri, Odisha. | | 2. LUMINOUS Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. | | Plot.No.215, Sector-A,Zone-B,Manucheswar Industrial Estate Near Silpanchal school,Bhubaneswar, | | Khordha | | Odisha | | 3. LUMINOUS Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. | | C-56, Mayapur Industrial Area, Phase-11, pin.110064 | | New Delhi |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | - The fact of the case of Complainant is that on 22.05.2016 he purchased one Luminous Battery bearing model no. TSTT18000 and serial no. R2G312E1033004 from O.P.No.1 vide retail invoice no. 493 dated 22.05.2016 and paid Rs. 13,000/-. It is alleged that 6 months after its use, the said battery stopped its function and became defunct due to some inherent defect, as such he reported the matter to the O.P. No.1, who inspected the batter and sent it for its repair to the service center of O.P.No.2 & 3 and was advised to come after one month.It is also alleged that after one month, while the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 to get his battery but was returned back with battery without its repair by O.P.No.1. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps, Complainant has filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the battery i.e. Rs. 13,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
- On the other hand, inspite of notices of this Fora properly served on the O.Ps, the O.Ps through Regd. Post vide RL No. A RO539052183IN, RL No. A RO539052197IN & RL No. A RO539052206IN all dated 24.10.2017, they did not choose to appear before this Fora nor they have filed their respective counter versions nor participated in the proceeding also, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from the O.Ps and the case is proceeded on exparte hearing.
- Complainant has filed certain documents showing the correspondence made between the Complainant and the O.P. No. 1 alongwith Retail Invoice and warranty certificate issued by the O.Ps.
- We heard from the Complainant at length, and non appearance in the instant case and not participating in the present proceeding by the O.P.s, the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged.
- In the case in hand, it is an evidentiary fact that on 22.05.2016 the Complainant had purchased one Luminous Battery bearing model no. TSTT18000 and serial no. R2G312E1033004 from O.P.No.1 vide retail invoice no. 493 dated 22.05.2016 and paid Rs. 13,000/-. It is also unchallenged facts that 6 months after its use, the said battery stopped its function and became defunct due to some inherent defects, as such the complainant reported the matter to the O.P. No.1, who inspected the batter and sent it for its repair to the service center of O.P.No.2 & 3 and was advised to come after one month.It is also unchallenged fact that after one month, while the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 to get his battery but he was returned back with battery without its repair by O.P.No.1.Therefore, the unchallenged averments of the complainant was taken into consideration.We have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that –“Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted”.
As such the averments made in the claim petition filed by the complainant was taken into consideration. - However, the complainant, at the time of hearing could not properly established about his sufferings and loss incurred upon thereby due to the alleged battery. Considering his suffering and loss as per claim petition, we feel the complainant deserves to be compensated by the O.Ps. as due to non appearance of the O.Ps, they have proved deficiency in service on their part, for which, the Complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses, as such, we feel, complainant deserves some compensation and costs and considering his sufferings Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the end of justice. Hence this order.
ORDER
Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the complaint petition is allowed in part. The O.P. 2 & 3 being the manufacturer and distributor of the alleged battery are herewith directed to refund the cost of the inverter of Rs. 13,000/- and also to pay Rs. 5000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry 10% interest per annum from the date of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of June, 2018.
Issue free copy to the parties concerned.
| |
