O R D E R:
Sri G.K.Rath, President :…
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The Case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a ECOLUX CFL 30 W Bulb of Bajaj Brand from the OP No.1 for Rs. 325/- on 21/04/2020 with one year warranty from the date of its purchase.
3. On demand for warranty card and purchase bill of the said bulb, the Op No.1 told he is writing the date of purchase on the bulb and box of the bulb with his signature. OP No.1 also assured the complainant that if there any defects will arise within one year, then he will exchange with a new one.
4. The complainant used the bulb and after 2 months on 26.6.2020, the bulb showed very dim lightening as a zero power light instead of its original lightening. By thinking the low voltage of the electrical line, the complainant and his family members adjusted with that bulb for 2/3 days .
When the bulb thereafter did not come to its normal working condition , the complainant went to the OP No.1 with the defective bulb and box, asked him to replace with a new one but the OP No.1 told he has no stocks of Bajaj Brand product CLF bulb and he is not dealing with the same for which he can not take back of that bulb. Thereafter OP No.1 advised the complainant to correspond with the manufacturing company OP No.2.
5. The complainant sent his allegation to OP No.2 on 3.7.2020 regarding the defects of the CFL Bulb along with couple of reminders with request to replace the product with a new one but OP No.2 did not response and gave a single reply.
6. Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Honourable District Forum to direct the Ops to return back the cost of the CFL bulb and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost
7. OPs were served with the notice of this complaint. OP No.1 despite its service and after giving him sufficient opportunities, did not put in it’s appearance to contest this complaint and accordingly he was proceeded against ex-parte.
8. On the other hand, OP No.2 appeared through its Authorized Advocate and filed it’s counter denying the allegations of the complainant. OP No.2 contended that the OP No.1 has not sold any product mentioned in the complaint as no invoice has been filed by the complainant. OP No.2 contended that the complainant has not purchased any product mentioned in the complaint as no invoice is produced.
9. It is contended by Op No.2 that the complainant has never sent any email to the OP No.2 with a request to replace the alleged defective product.
10. OP No.2 also contended that the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.1 and OP No.2.
11. It is also contended by OP No.2 that the complainant has to prove his case by sending the alleged defective product to a Laboratory for its technical analysis. With these and other contentions, OP No.2 denying any fault on its parts, prayed the Honourable Forum to dismiss the case of the complainant.
11. In support of his case, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of Box of the Bajaj CLF Bulb with date and signature of the OP No.1 on dated 21/04/2020 along with some email messages. The complainant has also produced the defective CLF bulb before the Honourable Dist. Forum for examination. OP No.2 filed its counter only.
12. We heard from the Complainant as well as from the OP No.2 and through their respective Authorised Advocates and perused the documents available on the record.
13. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a ECOLUX CFL 30 W Bulb of Bajaj Brand from the OP No.1 for Rs. 325/- on 21/04/2020 with one year warranty from the date of its purchase. On demand for warranty card and purchase bill of the said bulb, Op No.1 told he is writing the date of purchase on the bulb and box of the bulb with his signature. OP No.1 also assured the complainant that if there any defects will arise within one year, then he will exchange with a new one.
14. On the other hand ,the contention of the OP No.2 is that OP No.1 has not sold any product mentioned in the complaint as no invoice has been filed by the complainant. OP No.2 also contended that the complainant has not purchased any product mentioned in the complaint as no invoice is produced.
15. In this context, we perused the complaint petition , counter of the OP No.2 and the documents available on the record and found that the complainant mentioned in his complaint petition that on demand for the warranty card and purchase bill/invoice , OP No.1 instead of issuing any purchase bill/invoice only told he is writing the date of purchase on the bulb and box of the bulb with his signature. No where in the complaint petition, the complainant has mentioned that the OP No.1 has issued purchase bill/invoice on his purchase of that CLF bulb. So there is no question of filing of purchase bill/invoice by the complainant is arising. We also physically verified the CLF bulb and its box and found that the OP No.1 has written the date of purchase with his signature on both the bulb and its box. Thus we came into the conclusion that it is true that the complainant has purchased the CLF bulb from the OP No.1 on 21/04/2020 .
16. Again the case of the complainant is that on the advise of the OP No.1, he sent his allegation to OP No.2 on 3.7.2020 regarding the defects of the CFL Bulb along with couple of reminders with request to replace the product with a new one but OP No.2 did not response and gave a single reply.
17. The contention of the OP No.2 in this regards, the complainant has never sent any email to the OP No.2 with a request to replace the alleged defective product.
18. In this context, we perused the case record thoroughly and found that after founding the defects on the CLF bulb, the complainant has approached the OP No.1 for replacement of a new one and on the advise of the OP No.1, the complainant has sent his email allegation to the OP No.2 on 3.7.2020 and has sent some reminders with request to replace the product with a new one on 20.7.2020 and on 5.8.2020. The copy of email letters are available on record for the above dates. Hence the denial of the OP No.2 in its counter regarding receipt of any email requests from the complainant is a blatant lie. Hence the OP No. has received all the above referred letters from the complainant but knowingly neglected to solve the problems so raised therein. This inaction of the OP No.2 , in our opinion is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on its part.
19. The other contentions of the OP No.2 is that the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.1 and OP No.2.
20. In this context , we perused the case record , CLF Bulb and its box and found that the complainant has purchased the CLF Bulb from the OP No.1 on 21.4.2020 for Rs.325/-.The cost of the Bulb has mentioned in the box of CLF Bulb and the date of purchase by the complainant has clearly mentioned in the CLF bulb and its box with signature of the OP No.1. For which it can be safely believe that the complainant is a consumer of Op No.1 from whom he has purchased. It is also clearly found from the CLF bulb and its box that the manufacturer of the CLF Bulb is OP No.2 (the Bajaj Electrical Limited) . The complainant has purchased the CLF bulb of the OP No.2 means he is treated as the consumer of OP No.2.
21. Again the contentions of OP No.2 is that the complainant has to prove his case by sending the alleged defective product to a Laboratory for its technical analysis.
22. In this regards, we physically examine the CLF bulb and found that the CFL bulb is showing
very dim lightening as a zero power light instead of its original lightening. So we are in the view that where the defects of the CLF Bulb is visible for the naked eye, the laboratory test need not be done to prove the defect.
23. We observed a consumer purchases goods of a reputed company in order to have the convenience of no early repair or defects. In the instant case, the CLF Bulb is of a reputed company showed defects after some months of it’s purchase and use. The consumer /present complainant sent his grievance and reminders to the OP No.2 through email but OP No.2 did not give any reply or take any action in this regards……for which he consumer is unhappy. In our view this amount to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP 2 and he is guilty of deficiency in service. We are again in opinion that 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 it’s negligence and deficiency in service.
24. The complainant has successfully established his case against the OPs and proved the case with all supporting documents. Finally, we believed the case of the complainant as trustworthy.
Hence it is ordered that the complaint petition filed by the complainant is allowed in part and OP 2 being liable is hereby directed to refund the cost of the CLF Bulb and to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost 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 on this the 8th day of April’ 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President
Dist.CDR Commission, Nabarangpur
