Orissa

Rayagada

CC/107/2021

Sri B. Ranga - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Gupta Elecvtrical Deals in All Types Electrical - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__107_______/2021                                    Date.    17    .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri   B.Ranga, S/O: Late  Sri  B.Gurulu, Railway Colony, Po/Dist:Rayagada,

Odisha- 765  001.

                                                                        ….  Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.The Propritor, Gupta Electricals, At: Station Road,  Rayagada(Odisha).

2. The  Chief Executive Officer, Ganit Star Engineering,  Regd.  Address:- 45/2, Nayta Munda,  Agrawal Parisan Nemawar Road,  Paida, Opposite Badi Lakhani  Factory,  Indore- 52001,  Madhya Pradesh.

                                                                        …Opposite  Parties.

 

 

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the  O.P  No.1 :- Sri  Bistnu Prasad Panda and associates, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.2:- Set exparte.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non receipt of 2(two) year warranty  card   towards  purchase of  LED light model No. Slimline 20W  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.                                

On being noticed the O.P. No.1 appeared before the District Commission through their learned counsel and defend the case vehemently;

On being noticed the O.P No. 2   neither entering in to appear before the commission nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  03 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P  No.2.  Observing lapses of around  3 months   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.2. The action of the O.P No. 2  is  against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in  the Act. Hence the O.P  No.2   was set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit  against the O.P  No.2.

          Heard the case and  arguments from the   complainant..   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by     the   parties.

This District Commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

 

 

          FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, the complainant had purchased a  LED light model  No. Slimline  20W   on Dt.23.6.2021   vide  bill Dt. 23.6.2021  on payment of  consideration a sum of Rs.800.00 (Rupees eight hundred)only   to the O.P. (copies of the  bill is  available  in the file which is marked as Annexure=I).  On verification of the   box  of the  LED  light  there has been  clearly  mentioned  2 (two)  years  warranty for the above product(Xerox  copies of the same  is available   in the  file  which is marked as Annexure-2).   The O.P. No.1 (Dealer) in their   bill  he had mentioned   one year warranty.  Hence this case filed by the complainant  before the  District Commission  to get relief.

The   complainant during the course  of hearing submitted that  after filing of the present  case the  O.P. No.1  has  issued  further  one year warranty on the  above product.

The O.P  No.2  (Manufacturer)  has not filed a single piece of document to substantiate  his case. Hence, we believed the contentions alleged against the O.P  No.2 (Manufacturer ) and  allowed the complaint in part against the O.P   No.2 (Manufacturer) and passed the order  on the basis  of the  above citation.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

 

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed

.                               ORDER

        In resultant  the complaint petition   is allowed in part.

        The  O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer)  is directed to  pay  Rs.2,000/- (Rupees  two thousand)only  to the complainant  for harassment  and mental agony undergone by the complainant    with in  45 days  from the date of receipt  of this order. Parties are  left to bear their own cost.

 

        The O.P. No.1 (Dealer) is directed to refer the matter to the  O.P. No.2(Manufacturer)  for  early  compliance  of the above order.

 

Copies be  served on the parties as  per  rule. 

Dictated and corrected by me.  Pronounced  on  this           th.   Day of    December,  2021.

 

                                                                               

Member.                                                             President

 

 

 

.