BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Facts of the complaint case, in short, are that O.P. No.-01 is the seller, service provider and the authorized dealer of O.P. No.-2. O.P. No.-02 is the manufacturing company. Oppsite Party No.-1 is running his business/Service provider at Bar Padumbasan, under P.S.- Tamluk, Dist.- Purba. O.P. No.-01 is the seller/dealer of water purifier and others electrical appliances and branch office of Great Eastern Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Due to old-age of family members and as per advice of medical person as well as for urgent requirement of a water purifier for the purpose of domestic use of the petitioner met with O.P. No.-01 on 29.06.2018 and asked about water purifier of Kent make, at that time one staff namely Mr. Arun approached him to purchase the said water purifier of O.P. No.-02, he also assured that he is the authorized service provider, if it falls defect at any time O.P. No.-01 would be bound to replace the defective parts or repair water purifier within one year from the date of purchase. On  such types of assurance by O.P. No.-01 the petitioner agreed to purchase  water purifier(LG WW180EP Water Purifier Set GE1031310000244489477712002452BKQEIL Name of Manufacturer- LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) from O.P. No. -01 by paying of Rs. 27,000/- and O.P. No.-1 issued receipt thereof , at the time of purchase he also gave one year warrantee for said water purifier. At the time of purchase O.P. No.-1 assured the petitioner that such types of water purifier is reputed and best in quality in the market. O.P. No.-01 motivated to purchase the water purifier and assured providing service in time. On good faith and belief petitioner purchased schedule water purifier on 29.06.2018 from OP-1. After two months of purchase the said water purifier started creating problem and OP-1 was informed to that effect. After several complaints O.Ps sent a person/technician and he changed one parts (R.O. Membrane) of water purifier. In total two times it was changed. However, change of the membrane did not supply sufficient purified water by alleged water purifier .Person/technician of O.Ps also disclosed that such types of problems arise in some water purifier and he assured the petitioner regarding solving the problems but it was in vain. On several occasion  petitioner met with the O.P. No.-01 but he neither took any step to rectify the defective water purifier nor replaced it by a new one water purifier, O.Ps deliberately and wilfully harassed, failed to do proper service . The petitioner suffered loss & Damages and mental agony. Due to defective water purifier the petitioner compelled to purchase purifying water from the market by enough price i.e. more than Rs. 50000/-.On 27.06.2019  petitioner filed a petition to The Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for peaceful mediation about the said matter. The Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk, sent a notice to O.P. No.01 dated 24.07.2019 for taking necessary action to redress the grievances petitioner but O.Ps did not take any needful action. Thereafter , the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk, fixed on 08.08.2019 for peaceful mediation and sent a letter to O.P. no.-01, bearing memo no.- 315/CAPBM/55/PBM/19 for appear both the parties for mediation. The 1^st mediation was held on 08.08.2019 and 2^nd mediation was held on 20.08.2019 before  Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk, but O.P-1. was intentionally absent, till now no fruitful results have come out from O.Ps side. Thereafter, the petitioner on several times met with O.P. No.- 1 he only orally assured to the complainant to solve the problems but in vain till now O.P members have not taken any proper steps. The cause of action arose of this case on 29.06.2018, 30.08.2019 and 08.08.2019.

Under such circumstances , complainant prays for reliefs :

1. For return of the amount of Rs. 27,000/- 
2. For compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony, loss and damages etc.
3. For litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-
4. For other reliefs as per law and equity.

     Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. Despite service of summons the OPs did not appear to contest the case. Hence, the case is heard ex parte against the OPs.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?  

2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and alongwith receipts and other documents. None of the OPs has turned up to controvert the statement of the complaint on oath. The versions of the complainant have remained unchallenged. It appears that the water purifier in question had manufacturing defect in it. Ops did not replace the water purifier or did not make necessary repair within warranty period. It is an instance of unfair trade practice , and surely deficiency in service.

          In Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe in the matter of dispute concerning a consumer that it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage visa vise the supplier of service or goods.

          In view of the aforesaid decision and on the basis of the uncontroverted statement made in the complaint supported by affidavit, it is clearly established that the complainant is a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019(An Act to promote, protect and enforce the rights of the consumers) and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Consumer Protection Act 2019. So the complainant has been successful in proving his case.

          Thus both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/31 of 2020 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.

          The Opposite Parties, who are jointly and severally liable, are   hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.27, 000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date  of filing of this case till full realization of the awarded amount, with further Rs.5000/ as towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution.

 Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.