DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.05.2024.

PER:  SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W)

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainants have filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of their   grievance before this Commission.

2. The complainant is a professional person and for personal purpose purchased a Ujala Bulb of 9 watt LED Bulb for Rs.70/- bearing Invoice No. 17948 dated 26.04.2017. The O.Ps have sold the said bulb with certain terms and conditions that “the warranty period of the bulb is 3 years and it can be replaced within 3 years if defect arises” published in overleaf of the said invoice”. After using of said L.E.D. bulb for around six months, the bulb did not light thereafter. To replace the said bulb, the complainant personally approached the customer care centre, courtpeta, Berhampur of O.P.No.2 by closing his professional work but the staff of the said offi9ce replied that there is no stock of the said bulb with us and it cannot be replaced now and we did not know when the stock will be availed at this office. In constraint, issued self demand notice by registered post to both the office of O.P.No.1 & 2 on 27.06.2018 bearing postal receipt No.RO672501793IN, RO672501780IN & R0672501776IN dated 30.06.2018. Duly acknowledging the said notice, the Chief Operating Officer on behest of O.P.No.2 has issued advice dated 19.07.2018 suit notice No. 7363 the complainant to “approach any counter of customer care centre, Medical college branch for replacement of the bulb”. The complainant along with his friend approached the customer care centre, Medical College Branch for replacement on 25.07.2018 but instead of replace the said bulb, written endorsement on Annexure C as reply as follows: “The Ujala Led bulb did not attend before seven months and not for sale and nor for replacement”.  As a result, the complainant is suffering irreparable mentally physically and financially. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace the manufacturing defective Ujala LED bulb, compensation of Rs.7000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- in the best interest of justice.

      3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties. The O.P.No.1 & 2 neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version. Hence the O.P.No.1 & 2 set exparte on dated 19.01.2024.

      4.  The O.P.No.3 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made in complaint petition are not at all correct as such the complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations which are not specifically admitted. The complaint is filed against the O.P.No.1 & 2 for replacement of Ujala LED bulb along with compensation etc. This O.P. neither is the manufacturer or seller of the defective bulbs in question. On the requests of one seller i.e. O.P.No.1, this O.P. has allowed some space at its customer care centre for sell of the electrical items like roadside vegetable vendors who are also allowed to sell their vegetables in front of the customer care centre. SOUTHCO has not sold any bulb to any customer and the EESL is not an agent of SOUTHCO. The present proceeding is bad for                      mis-joinder of necessary parties. The present proceeding is not maintainable against this O.P.No.3 and prayed liable to be dismissed.   

      5. On the date of hearing the advocate for the complainant and O.P.No.3 are present. The Commission perused the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, and written argument at length. The O.P.No.1 and 2 are absent and not filed any steps. On analyzing of the evidence adduced by the parties, it is revealed that as peer instruction of the O.P.No.3  the complainant No.1 approached the customer care centre of O.P.No.3 who has replied in writing to the complainant No.1 as Annexure-D the O.P.No.1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed any objection to the complaint of the complainant in the instant case and even noticed issued to them. The terms and conditions of the broacher, which was issued by the O.P.No.1 & 2 with the invoice discloses that, the LED bulbs are having 3 years warranty. But not substantiate there in that, if the said bulbs are stopped working during the warranty period, what should be done with the bulb. Not mentioning of next steps if a product got damaged during the period of warranty is tantamount to unfair trade practice. 

In the result, the Commission allowed the complaint of the complainants against the O.P.No.1 & 2 and dismissed against the O.P.No.3. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 are directed to replace the LED bulb with new LED bulb of the complainant No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order and further extend the warranty period of the product. It is also directed to O.P.No.1 & 2 to mention in the invoice under warranty head that the option for repair or replace of the product if found defect during the warranty period. In the event of non-compliance of the above order by the opposite party no.1 and 2, the complainant no.1 is at liberty to take further steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 22.05.2024