The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Sri Pradyumna Sahoo, Proprietor- Nilgiri Green Tech Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office- M.I.G-II, Kalidaspur, Balasore and O.P No.2 is Sri Pradyumna Sahoo, Proprietor- Nilgiri Green Tech Pvt. Ltd., Manufacturing Office- Naranpur, Balasore. 

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant in order to maintain his livelihood, decided to make Agarbati sticks at his own residential place by availing private loans and accordingly, the Complainant purchased two nos. of Agarbati/ Dhoop manufacturing machines on 27.09.2013 from O.P No.1 on payment of Rs.25,100/- (Rupees twenty five thousand one hundred only) and other related raw materials by obtaining original money receipt, where the O.P assured to provide home service facilities/ free replacement on manufacturing defects of the machine/ machinery parts etc. within two years of warranty period from the date of purchase. But, within one month of purchase of the said machines show mechanical/ manufacturing defects and became inoperative and accordingly, the Complainant had been to O.P on 03.11.2013 for eradication of defects of the said machines, where the in-efficient mechanic personnel repaired the same, which was not satisfactory for smooth running. Thereby, the Complainant had been to O.P No.1 and requested to replace the said machines and on discussion, the O.P promised/ assured to replace the same with a new one within one month of availability of new stock. The Complainant again on 20.12.2013 had been to O.P for replacement of the said machine, but the O.P without replacing the same took time again and again and avoided in different pretext. Thus, the Complainant sent an Advocate notice to the O.Ps through his Advocate on 20.03.2014 with a request to take remedial steps on it, but the said notice was returned undelivered. Lastly, the Complainant contacted the O.P over telephone and requested to replace the said machine as per warranty condition, but the O.P strongly refused to replace the same, causing irreparable loss and injury both in mentally and physically. So, the Complainant has filed this case for negligence in duty and deficiency-in-service by the O.P. Cause of action arose on dtd.27.09.2013 after purchase of said machines from the O.P. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of said defective machine with a new one and compensation for loss in business, mental agony along with litigation cost and to prosecute the O.P for his illegal/ fraudulent acts.    

                    3. Though the O.Ps appeared in this case, but they have not filed their written version. The O.Ps are also set ex-parte.

                    4. In order to substantiate his claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that when the machine was found defective, he approached the O.Ps for its repair and after due repair when the machine was again found defective, he has been suffered loss in his business in order to maintain his livelihood. This amounts to deficiency-in-service on the part of the O.Ps. So, the Complainant has filed this case praying for replacement of the said defective machine with a new one along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.Ps are set ex-parte in this case, for which the entire claim of the Complainant remained uncontroverted. We also found no reasonable ground to disbelieve the submission/ pleading of the Complainant.      

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to direct the O.Ps jointly and severally liable to replace the alleged machine by a new one of same make and model within 60 days of receipt of this order, which will meet the ends of Justice in this case. But, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, no compensation and cost is allowed to the Complainant. Hence, Ordered:-     

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed in part on ex-parte against O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to replace the alleged machine by a new one of same make and model within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps under due process of Law.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 1st day of November, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.