Orissa

Bargarh

CC/09/52

Sanjay Kumar Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Chandan Brothers - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S.K.Naik and others

04 Mar 2010

ORDER


OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT),AT:COURT PREMISES,PO/DIST:BARGARH,PIN:768028,ORISSA
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/52

Sanjay Kumar Naik
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Proprietor, Chandan Brothers
Proprietor, Chandar Brothers,
Unitary Products Business Group,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA 2. SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Sri S.K.Naik and others

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President. The case pertains to deficiency in service as provided under the Consumer Protect Act- 1986 and its brief fact is as follows:- The Complainant has purchased a volts Air conditioner machine for a sum of Rs.16,900/- (Rupees sixteen thousand nine hundred)only from the authorized dealer Opposite Party No. 1(one) vide Bill No. 149 Dt.18/04/2008. The Opposite Party No. 1(one) issued guarantee registration card of said machine and two free coupon in favour of the Complainant. He has purchased the same on the advise of Opposite Party No. 1(one) and one Uddhaba Behera , the husband of his sister who is well acquainted with the Opposite Party No.1(one), with a hope to get proper service in respect of the said Air condition if any fault occurred during the warranty period. The said machine installed at his residence at Sundargarh. But in the month of February-2009 the said air conditioner did not function with in the warranty period. Immediately the matter was reported to Opposite Party No.1(one) and requested to repair the same. The Opposite Party No.1(one) asked the Complainant to deposit Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred)only towards traveling expenses to send a mechanic to his house at Sundargarh. As such the Complainant deposited the cost with the Opposite Party No.1(one). The Complainant waited the mechanic for same days and when the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not send any mechanic again he approached on March-2009, the Opposite Party No.1(one) assured to send a mechanic within a week and gave a mobile number 92383-65205 of one Mr. Upadhya, Service Engineer of voltas company for contact. He contacted with the engineer many time but failed. Again the complainant contacted with a toll free number 1800-4254-555 of voltas company and his complaint was registered as No. 09M Y 3000516 by the company. The Complainant received SMS by the company through his mobile phone that the air conditioner will be repaired within 48(forty eight) hours. Inspite of that and repeated approach to the Opposite Parties, the Air conditioner has not been repaired by the Opposite Parties till date. Alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the case claiming either to replace the said air conditioner machine with a new one or refund the price of the said machine within a stipulated time and to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards compensation with interest. Notice was duly served on the Opposite Parties. Due to non-appearance the Opposite Parties, set ex-parte and the case was heard ex-parte. Perused the complaint petition, copy of documents filed by the party and also heard the Complainant and find as follows:- The copy of Bill No. 149 Dt. 18/04/2008 and Guarantee Reregistration Card issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in favour of the Complainant proves that, the Complainant has purchased the air conditioner machine from Opposite Party No.1(one), the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.2(two). In the month of February-2009, within the warranty period, the said machine did not function. Repeated request were made to Opposite Parties for repair or replace the said Air Conditioner machine but they did not listen the request of the Complainant and remain silent. As per the warranty card issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one), the Opposite Parties are duty bound to give proper service if defect occurred with in the warranty period. To strengthen the case, the Complainant has also filed an affidavit. But inspite of repeated request the Opposite Parties remain silent and did not repair or replace the defective air conditioner. The Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service towards the Complainant for not repairing or replacing the said machine with a new one. In the result, complaint allowed and directed the Opposite Parties to refund Rs. 16,900/-(Rupees sixteen thousand nine hundred)only the price of the Air conditioner with 6%(six percent) interest per annum with effect from February-2009 to date of this order and Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only towards cost compensation to the Complainant within 30(thirty) days from the date of this order hence, 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum shall be charged on the total amount. Complaint allowed accordingly.




......................MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA
......................SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN