ORDER

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER



   Complainant purchased a laser diode module kit with power supply  #
S/N 2799 bearing serial number LAG 27299-01 and karatmeter ORA super
for a sum of Rs. 10,20,000/- from OP vide invoice no QECL/12-13/126
dated  16-10-2012.

    It is alleged by the complainant that the during course of its
utilization it was found that the said machine was not working
properly and had some manufacturing defect in its head part.

    The complainant approached the branch office of the OP  and lodged
a complaint regarding the faulty equipment. The  branch office of the
OP co. requested the complainant to take the faulty equipment  at
their co. head office at Mumbai. For this, branch office issued one
letter dated 12-8-2014 duly signed by the authorized signatory
clarifying the facts that the aforesaid equipment is under warranty.

    It is alleged by the complainant on the very next day i.e.
13-8-2014 she took  the faulty equipment to the head office of th OP
at Mumabi, she handed over the faulty equipments to the concerned
official of OP on 13-8-2014 , who in turn asked the complainant  to
wait for a day to inspect the faulty equipment.

    Complainant again on 14-8-2014 visited the Head Office . of the
OP, where the officials of the OP handed over the acknowledgment
receipt of the faulty equipment to her and undertake to hand over the
repaired machine to the complainant upto 30-8-2014.

    It is alleged by the complainant that when she contacted the OP on
30-8-2014, OP sought some more time to get the repairing done and the
ground of technical issues.

    It is further alleged by the complainant that till date OP neither
repaired nor replaced the faulty machine, hence she approached this
forum for the redressal of her grievance.

    Notices of the complaint were sent to the Ops hrough registered
ADPost on 16-7-2015. The notices were not  received back unserved and
therefore service was presumed to have been effected on the Ops. Since
none had appeared on behalf of the Ops, they were ordered to be
proceeded with ex-parte.

     We have heard arguments advanced at bar and have perused the record.

    The complainant had placed on record the copy of invoice dated
16-10-2012. She has placed on record the copy of the letter dated
12-8-2014 issued by the branch office of the OP which clearly shows
that the alleged equipment is under warranty for two years. She has
also placed on record the copy of the acknowledgement receipt dated
14-8-2014 issued by the head office of the OP whereby OP under taken
to carry out the necessary repair work in the machine and hand over
the same to the complainant upto 30.8.2014. The complainant has placed
on record the copy of legalnotice dated 29-1-2015 thereby calling upon
the OP to either repair / replace the defective faulty machine.

From the unrebutted testimony of the complainant as well as the
document placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth
by the complainant is true.  We hold OP guilty of deficiency in
service and direct it as under:

1.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs5,10,000 /-  being the cost of the machinery

2.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs50,000/- as  compensation for pain
 and agony suffered by the complainant.

3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs5,000 /-   as cost of litigation.

                   The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30
days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to
pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP
fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this
Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer
Protection Act.

    Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

    File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................