SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: - Complainant Santosh Kumar Sharma has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service claiming relief for the same. Case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Kenstar Cooler, Model No.9704-Turb0(OO) and Sl.No.161112153801 on dt.26.5.2013  from O.P.No.2 having warranty condition. Complainant alleges that on dt.26.4.2015 at around 9.30 A.M. the cooler system failed to function.                                                                                          

          2. Petitioner complained before O.P.No.2, who advised the complainant to approach O.P.No.1. Complainant registered the complaint in the register of O.P.No.1 on dt.26.4.2014, but no one was deputed to correct the defect. On dt.28.4.2014 complainant again telephoned to O.P.No.2, still there was no response. On the same day i.e. 28.4.2014 complainant contacted the Bhubaneswar branch office of O.P.No.1, but nobody received the telephone call. Complainant being frustrated again tried to talk to O.P.No.2, but he also did not respond to the telephone call and also did not attend to repair the defective cooler.

                3. For the negligent behavior of O.P.No.2, complainant was harassed and sustained mental agony, tension and irreparable loss            and also suffered due to heat which was hovering around 45 degrees at that period at Sambalpur.

                4. On dt.03.5.2014 at about 5.30 P.M. one person came to the house of the complainant and identified himself as Kenstar mechanic from Bhubaneswar. But he did not produce any Identity card. So, complainant did not entertain him and refused to take any service from him. On the basis of the above allegations complainant filed this case and prayed that he may be compensated adequately for the sufferings.

                Complainant filed Xerox copies of two documents i.e. (1) Receipt towards purchase of the Kenstar Cooler and (2) Warranty card of the Cooler.

                5. Both the O.Ps were noticed. O.P.No.1 appeared through its Advocate and filed written version, but O.P.No.2 remained absent even after receipt of notice. Since service was sufficient against O.P.No.2, it was set ex-parte.

                6. It has been stated by O.P.No.1 in its version that O.P.No.2 is not the authorized dealer of O.P.No.1; hence it is not responsible for any such purchase. O.P.No.1 also denies the allegation of the complainant regarding any telephonic call to its branch office at Bhubaneswar on dt.28.4.2014.

                7. In para-6 of the version, O.P.No.1 admitted that one authorized mechanic of O.P.No.1 with proper identification was sent to the house of the complainant for providing service on dt.03.5.2014, but the mechanic was refused/restrained by the complainant from providing any service. On the basis of above submission, O.P.No.1 prays that it is not liable for any kind of inconvenience caused to the complainant.

                O.P.No.1 filed copy of No defect certificate dated.03.5.2014 signed by O.P.No.2 without any signature of the mechanic and complainant/customer.

                8. Heard the parties and perused the complaint petition, written version filed by O.P.No.1 and documents placed on record. On the basis of the allegation and counter defence, we find that allegations of the complainant are true. O.P.No.2 did not respond to his telephonic call though he sold the cooler and also he has chosen not to appear before this Forum and defend his case. Hence, it can be safely presumed that he is at fault for providing after sales service to the complainant.

                9. O.P.No.1 in para-2 denied that O.P.No.2 is not their authorized dealer, but subsequently in para-6 has mentioned that it had deputed one authorized mechanic to the house of the complainant, but has failed to enlighten us as to how mechanic was deputed for a purchase which is not from authorized dealer. Hence, we strongly depreciate the stand taken by O.P.No.1 in its written version, which is counter balancing  each other. At one hand O.P.No.1 is denying the purchase from authorized dealer and on the other hand it acknowledged the purchase by sending an authorized mechanic to attend the problem. This is a double standard being played by the O.P.No.1.

                10. O.P.No.1 is bound to provide service to the complainant in the midst of summer, which it has failed to do and took long time of around eight days during high temperature which was prevalent in those days and complainant was left fend for himself.

                11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we hold that both the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 are equally liable for the suffering which the complainant went through during harsh summer for which they are liable to compensate the complainant. We hold the O.Ps jointly and severally liable and impose compensation of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand) to be paid by the O.Ps to the complainant  within one month from the date of order failing which the awarded amount will carry interest at the rate of 12 (Twelve) per cent per annum from the date of order till the date of payment. No order is passed as to the costs.