By P.K.Nayak,M.A.LL.B, Member
1.The complainant filed this case against O.Ps on dtd.02.06.2022 praying for a direction to the O.Ps for replacement of defective AC by a new same brand with free from defects against his purchased one from the O.P. No.1 and for a compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- for his mental agony alongwith Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Facts of the case.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased an AC (Voltas) vide model No. EV 18VCZR Classic having serial No.4513022E 211 A09354, OID 4552964A 213F 25011, CBU code 4503127 IDU code 4552964, tax invoice No.248 from the O.P.No.1 on 14.05.2022.There is guarantee and warrantee papers provided with the usual manual of the product as wells as on the cartoon of that product for five years of the product and different parts of it. It was installed by the technical person of O.P.No.1 on dtd.15.05.2022.After three days of this it is found mal function and defective. So the complainant complained before the O.Ps for rectifying the defects immediately and ultimately on dt.26.05.2022 lodged a complaint before the O.Ps as a result on dtd.29.05.2022 the O.Ps sent technical person who tried to rectify the defects of the product, but failed to do so. After this the complainant approached the O.Ps repeatedly several times, but there was no response from the side of the O.Ps and they remained silent though the complaint was within the guarantee and warranty period. Being harassed by the O.Ps mentally, financially he filed this case before this Commission seeking proper redressal. After receiving complaint the Commission issued notices to the O.Ps to keep their stands before the Commission through written version. The O.P.No.1 appeared without version and the O.P No.2 appeared through his authorized person with the signature and seal of BSM, BBSR (UPBG) for Voltas namely Prafulla Kumar Panda, aged about 36 years having Adhar card No.636587903584 before Commission on 28.07.2022 with a written request to submit written version on next hearing. By then though adequate time and opportunities given to the O.Ps they neither appeared nor submitted written version and willfully ignored even the call of Commission resultantly the O.Ps are set as ex-parte.
3. On the ex-parte hearing on merits we reasonably analyzed the suffering of the complainant being a bonafide consumer having genuine tax invoice, warranty papers and the repeated ignorance, negligence of the O.Ps except sending a technical person who had unable to rectify the defects of the product as the service provided by him was faulty, imperfect, deficient and of inadequate quality. Hence the product does not conform to express warranty so liabilities goes to the O.P No.2 i.e. the product manufacturer. Again the O.P No.1 is liable for, lack to arrange perfect technical person, to minimize the communication gap between the Consumer and the service provider, to address minimum grievance of consumer’s approach of harassment due to defective product .For the above reason, we concluded that the complainant need to get relief and his petition is partly allowed.
ORDER
We direct the O.P No.2 to replace a new Voltas AC of same model against the existing one with free from defects alongwith all the required papers with a compensation amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only for mental agony and directed to the O.P No. 1 an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only towards litigation cost within One month from the date of passing this order, failing which the O.Ps will pay 12% per annum interest for the awarded value of the product and awarded amount levied on them respectively till realisation of the same.
Order is pronounced in the open Court under the seal and signature of this Commission this the day of 20th March, 2023.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the parties with free of cost, if applied for.
