Orissa

Debagarh

CC/15/2015

Nabin Kumar Pani, aged about 50 yrs.S/O-Madhusudan Pani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General manager, Vertis Elite, Unitary Products Business group, Voltas House (A) - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Guru, A.K. Pujari

03 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

                                         C.D.Case No.14/2015.

            Sri P.K.Dash, President and Sri P.C. Mahapatra, Member.

 

Nabin Kumar Pani, S/o-Madhusudan Pani,

Aged about 50 years, R/o-Barapali Sahi,

Ward No.4, PO/PS/Dist-Deogarh.                                       … Complainant.

 

            Versus

1. The General Manager, Vertis Elite,

Unitary Products Business Group,

Voltas House, ‘A’ Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokil,

2. Proprietor, Debta Electronics,

Deogarh, At-Kargil Chowk,

Po/PS/Dist-Deogarh, Odisha.

3. Proprietor, H.P. Electronics,

Ainthapali road, Sambalpur,

Po/PS-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur.                         … Opp.Parties.

 

                                 

            Date of hearing: 03.02.2016, Date of order: 03.02.2016.

 

SRI PRABHAT KANT DASH, PRESIDENT; - The petitioner has agitated his cause in the petition stating that, he is a permanent resident of Deogarh town .He had purchased a Voltas 1.5 ton Air conditioner indoor Unit Model No.4551147P10D/13773 and Sl.No.4511164A10LO/17667 from the O.P.no.2 (two) M/s Debta Electronics performing his business as an authorized sales dealer of Voltas Air conditioner with a cash consideration of Rs.24,000/- vide Cash Memo No.14 Dtd.5.7.2012  . The O.P.No.1 (one) is the manufacturer and O.P.no.3 (three) is the servicing dealer of the Voltas as service provider.

            That, the petitioner further stated that , during the time of purchase O.P.no.2 (two) issued a five years warranty certificate supplied by O.P.no.1 (one) for the said A.C. model . The petitioner found the said A.C defective after few month of its used relating to its cooling system and it was shut down. That, thereafter the petitioner informed the defects in the A.C to the O.P.No.2 (two) consequently , he manage a technician namely Tanu but the mechanic utterly failed to repair and by opening a part called P.C.B send it to the O.P.No.3 (three) which is the authorized service center of O.P.No.1 (one) . However, it was activated by the technician. That, again subsequently, the petitioner found defects in various parts of the aforesaid A.C and detected brake down of the motor for which the petitioner complained through toll free number. After few month he further detected defects in the compressor of the A.C which is said to be the important part of the A.C got break down .Those , series of defects all brought to the notice of the O.Ps within the warranty stipulated period of five years and the petitioner again and again request the O.Ps to solve the problem permanently on several occasion and in toll free number even subsequently on Dtd.18.7.2014 in complain registration no.14071801598 .The request was not responded till 27.8.2014 . Subsequently, the A.C again shows malfunction on dtd.28.3.2015, 29.3.2015 and on dtd.1.4.2015 technician of the O.P visited and took the P.C.B and send it to Sambalpur Voltas service center which was repaired on dtd.14.4.2015 but as no technician has been deputed by the O.Ps for its installation the P.C.B has been remain un-install even till filing of the consumer case and subsequently thereafter. It is the case of the petitioner that , he has lodge the complain in the toll free number severally and on dtd.20.5.2014 the O.P.No.3 (three)  had received Rs.3,400/- vide invoice no.2789 dtd.20.05.2014 . Even after the payment also he faced the same trouble repeatedly. As the A.C was meant for the purpose of domestic used the petitioner alongwith his family member’s sustained physical pain due to heavy humidity and high temperature of the weather due to the repeated malfunction of the A.C.

            The petitioner has relied his complaint petition being supported with verification coupled with an affidavit supporting his case and verbatim of his grievance. He has also relied on the self-attested xerox copies of cash memo, warranty term and condition alongwith owner’s manual and the invoice of the service cost paid to O.P.No.3 (three).

            In this case the OP.No.1 (one) who is the manufacturer of the product was noticed through Regd. Post even if the A.D is not return to the forum, it is presume that the address of the Regd. Letter of O.P.no.1 (one) was correct and the money receipt of the postal authority in respect of the Regd. letter is presumed to be sufficient that, the notice was sufficiently on the O.P. No.1 (one) and he is default contesting the case and he was declared expartee. The notice on  O.P.no.2 (two) and 3 (three) was sufficiently served as it is reveals from the case record and as they deliberately did not participated in the case they also declared expartee and the case was heard expartee against all in toot.

            From the petition cum affidavit, documents and submission advance by learned advocate for the petitioner it is apparent from the face of the record that the petitioner is a bonafide consumer and he has sustained both mental and physical pain by approaching his cause repeatedly before the O.ps who could’ have dealt the situation for giving a good functioned air-condition to the domestic need of the petitioner and his family members. We believe that, the petitioner has un-necessarily sustained pecuniary loss also even during the total warranty period of the A.C .The condition of the warranty as it is found is extended to the replacement also within the period of five years and it is definitely an implied duty of the O.Ps to substitute and supply a trouble free A.C to the petitioner. In these premises substitution of a completely a new machine in this belated stage is seems to be improper and the cause of the petitioner can be meet with a case compensation only.

            From the above observation we believe the case of the petitioner and hold that the O.ps are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner with the following operative order.

 

                                                ORDER

            The O.P.no.1 (one) to 3 (three) all are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand ) to the petitioner as a compensatory cost for the defective A.C and the deficiency in the service caused by them and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand ) towards the mental agony and litigation expenses . The O.Ps are directed the pay the above amount within 45 (forty-five ) days of receiving of this order failing which a further 6% per annum will be recoverable on the above amount till it is realized  .On the event of receiving of the above amounts the petitioner is to return the old defective A.C to the O.Ps .

            Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties keeping acknowledgement of the receipt thereof.

            Order pronounced in the open court today I, e, on 3th day of February, 2016 under my hand and seal of this forum.

 

                        I agree,

 

 

 

                      MEMBER.                                             PRESIDENT.

 

Dictated and corrected

        By me.

 

 

      PRESIDENT.