Sri G.K.Rath, President :…
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
2. The Complainant purchased a rain coat //// RAINFIGHTER//// on 17.06.2020 from the OP1 for Rs.1200/- for use in the rainy days. After 2/3 days of it’s use , the rain coat found water sinking it’s inside for which his inside clothes became wet and he felt odd feeling.
The complainant contacted with the OP 1 and requested him to replace the said defective rain coat with a new one but OP 1 denied to replace by saying he is not the authorized agent or distributor or dealer of the OP 2, some agents are supplying these rain coats to him with heavy discount and he is only selling these items to the customer and getting profit. The OP 1 told the complainant to approach OP 2 regarding this matter.
3. The complainant tried to call the number of the OP 2 but the number was dead for which the complainant felt mental agony for the same . Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this complaint before this honourable Forum/Commission with a prayer to direct the Ops to refund the cost of the rain coat and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost .
4. OPs were served with the notice of this complaint but despite its service and after giving them sufficient opportunities, the OPs did not put in their appearance to contest this complaint and accordingly they were proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant has led ex-parte evidence in which he had filed xerox copy of purchase receipt issued by OP 1 in support of the allegation made by him in his complaint. The complainant also showed the defective rain coat in support of his case.
4. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. On the other hand, Ops did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that rain coat purchased by the complainant was defective . The complainant contacted OP 1 for solving the problem and OP 1 escaped himself by showing the ground that he is not the authorized agent or distributor or dealer of the OP 2, some agents are supplying these rain coats to
-2-
him with heavy discount and he is only selling these items to the customers and getting profit .Thereafter he advised the complainant to approach OP 2 and as per the advise the complainant tried to call on the number of the OP 2 but the number of the OP 2 was found dead . We are in the view that the manufacturing companies like OP 2 should always be alert to settle the problem of their customers by keeping their toll free number always to be opened. They should make arrangement of their toll free number to active for receiving the complaint/grievance of their aggrieved customers and they should always be ready for provide better solution and service to them. But in this matter, the OP2 being the manufacturing company of the rain coat has not made any arrangement of its number as active and as the number found dead, the customer like the present complainant could not able to contact OP2 for informing his grievance. This inaction of the OP 2 is amounting to serious negligence and deficient in service.
5. We also observed a consumer purchases goods of a reputed company in order to have the convenience of no early defects. In this case, the rain coat is manufactured by a reputed company and it showed defects after 2/3 days of it’s purchase and use . The consumer /present complainant tried to call on OP2’s number to intimate his grievance but due to the dead of the number, the complainant failed to intimate his grievance to OP 2 ... for which the consumer is unhappy. In our view if a consumer like the present complainant is unhappy, then OP 2 being the manufacturer of this product is only liable to compensate the loss for his negligence and deficiency in service.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant complaint is allowed and OP2 being liable is hereby directed to refund the cost of the rain coat and to pay Rs.5,000/- as Compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which Rs.100/- will be charged per day till the realization of the awarded amount .
Order pronounced in the open Forum/Commission on this the 12th day of March, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President
DCDRC, Nabarangpur
Memo No__97_/DF Dated. 12/03/2021
Copy to the parties concerned.
