SRI P.K.PANDA,PRESIDENT … The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant had purchased VOLTAS vide No.CFHT320DDP19B and S/N. No. 5210395A19B-005785through OP-1 on dated 28/02/2019 for Rs.21500/-. The complainant contended that, after its use for about Three month thefreezerreported sort and noise sound inside from the compressor and affected the cooling system.Finding the defects, the complainant contacted with the OP-1 and narrated the defects occurred in the alleged product,who advised the complainant to bring the alleged product to his showroom,so that he will send the same to the service center od OP-2 for its proper inspection and repair and advised to come after 15 days.After keeping the said fridge with him the OP-1 returned with a false belief that the compressor is replaced.As such the complainant returned his house with the product.That after using the said fridge in the month of June’2019 the said fridge exhibited same proplem with some extra defect like water leakage etc.At the same day,the complainant contact again to the OP-1,who advised same as earlier for inspection and repair.The complainant again obeys as per his advice.Again the OP-1 returned the product with same opinion as earlier.After two days,the same problem arises again.The complainant contact to the OP-1 with presenting all his problem and demand for replacement as the product is covered under warranty period.The OP-1 denied to repair and advise to contact directly to OP-2 by saying that the compressor is having inherent defect on manufacturing time.The complainant several times tried to contact with the OP-2 through their toll free number,but no good response from the OP-2.
So the complainant alleged that the OPs has provides him a substandardproduct for a huge price, and to which act the complainant sustained mental agony, physical pain and financial hardship due to the malfeasance actions of Ops, hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. So he prayed before the Hon’bleCommission to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged freezer and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation for such unfair, illegal, deceptive and deficiency in service on the part of OPs proper in the interest of justice.
2. The complainant has filed copy of some relevant documents to support his case and case has been heard minutely. The OP-1 was appearedand filed his counter as a retailer of the OP-2 product. Also he mentioned his counter Para-4 ,that “if are any manufacturing defect for not functioning this OP is not liable for the same as because this OP is not a company service center ,he is a retail selling point and is not libel for any manufacturing defect and company is liable for the said defect in goods”.
The OP-2 neither appeared nor filed their counter in the case despite a number of calls since 2019 after taking notice from this notice, hence they set ex parte and the Commission decided to proceed the case as per documents available in record on merit.
3. It reveals from record that the complainant has procured the said freezer on dt.28.02.2019 through OP-1 and the same found multiple defects after three month of its purchase i.e. within full valid warranty period. It is seen from the record that, the complainant time and again approached the OPs intimating the so called defects, but the OPs neither rectified the product nor replaced the same or paid its cost. The complainant first approached the OP-1 and after fails, he approached the OP-2 with a hope of replacement, but no point of time the OPs take his responsible for complainant grievances on his demand as per e-comers entity under the provisions of C.P.Act’2019. It is further reveals that the complainant harassed a lot financially and mentally. In our concerned opinion, the complainant being an educated unemployed has purchased the freezer by paying a huge remuneration alluring great features by its use, but he restrained to facilitate the same. On the other hand the OPs neither replaced the set nor paid its price on claim of complainant. Perusing the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the freezer in question purchased by the complainant might have inherent manufacturing defect. The service rendered by Ops being duty bound is not satisfactory, which seems arbitrary and being the principal is liable for the deficiency accrued on their part. As such the complainant suffered mental agony with the damaged product and also inflicted financial losses for the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s. Hence, this Commission passes an order with allowing the petition filed by the Complainant in part.
4. From all corners of the case, it is observed that, the OP. 2 challenged in their counter that the allegation made by complainant on manufacturing defect is without relying any expert report, but from catena of top court decisions held that "expert opinion/report is not necessary for every case", so the contention is baseless, hence we found that the OP.s without following the warranty norms and acts as illegal and highhandedness, so in our opine, the action of OP.s is against the principles of settled law and also we found arbitrary and unfair practices on the part of OP.s which amounts to deficiency in service, as thus the complainant is harassed in both mentally and financially, hence lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. However as the OP-2 is the manufacturer of the said product, the complaint is allowed against OP-2 with costs.
ORDER
i. The OP-2 is hereby directed to pay the cost of the damaged freezer inter alia, to pay Rs.15,000/-(fifty thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.
ii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which Rs.50/-per day shall add with the awarded sum for lapse of periods.
( Pronounced on this the 29th day of Mar' 2023)
