Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Self.
.For the O.Ps :- Set exparte..
JUDGEMENT.
1.The crux of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps non refund of purchase price towards Eye Gas Analyser which is called as testing pollution of the vehicles which was found defective within warranty period for which the complainant sought compensation for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case are summarized here under.
2. That the complainant is a educated unemployed youth. He was searching good job, failure to got good job for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment has ordered to purchase 13 Eye Gas Analyser(Sr. No. G444) Model No. EPM-160 and (Sr.No. 5285 Model No.EDM-160. Further the complainant has brought the money on hand loan basis from the friends and relatives. That the complainant has purchased above items from the O.P. on Dt.31.05.2018 on payment of amount a sum of Rs. 1,59,300/-. The O.Ps. have sold the said set to the complainant providing one year warranty period vide Retail invoice No.SES/SM/I 050 /2018-19 Dt. 31.05.2018 .The above set found defective within the warranty period and not working properly from the very begining. The complainant complained the matter to the O.P from time to time over phone. Inspite of repeated contact to the O.P he is paid deaf ear and not resolve the defects for working condition which is existing in the above machine. The complainant feels there is a manufacturing defects. Now the above set is unused. But no action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this present case filed before the District commission for redresssal of his grievance. The complainant prays the District Commission direct the O.Ps to refund the purchase of the above machine and such other relief as the District Commission deems fit & proper for the best interest of justice.
3.Upon Notice, the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the District Commission nor filed their written version inspite of more than 3 years has been given to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps. Observing lapses of around 6 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.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of natural justice as envisaged in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps. 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.
4.We therefore constrained to proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. Heard from the complainant. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.
Findings.
5.Undisputedly the complainant had purchased 13 Eye Gas Analyser(Sr. No. G444) Model No. EPM-160 and (Sr.No. 5285 Model No.EDM-160 from the O.Ps on Dt.31.05.2018 on payment of consideration amount a sum of Rs. 1,59,300/-. Again undisputedly the O.Ps. have sold the said set to the complainant providing one year warranty period vide Retail invoice No.SES/SM/I 050 /2018-19 Dt. 31.05.2018 (copies of the bill is available in the file which marked as Annexure- I)
The main grievance of the complainant was that the above goods are not functioning well and there is manufacturing defect. Inspite of repeated contact to the O.Ps over phone the O.Ps could not be made perfect running condition. Hence this C.C. case filed before the District Consumer Commission, for refund of purchase price of the above goods.
The OPs despite receiving notice from this District Commission and also had received notice through police authority of New Delhi but failed to render service to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. as provisions laid down in Sec.2 (1)(d) of the Act.
During the course of exparte hearing the complainant put forth the required papers before this District Commission and marked as Annexures.
The complainant submitted that the above goods was purchased the only source of livelihood and he had paid the above amount to the O.Ps by raising hand loan from the friends and relatives. Besides having that’s why suffered for non running the above machine perfectly and the amounts are blocked, and now he is under an obligation to repay the hand loan amount by way of installments including interest. Further the complainant is a qualified unemployed trained graduate. We fail to understand as to why the O.Ps did not refunded the above amount to the complainant
After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration to the evidence.
In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side of O.Ps there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth by the complainant before the forum whose evidence suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency in service but also negligence on the part of the O.Ps in not made perfect running condition of the above goods within warranty period as per the provisions laid down under section -39 of the C.P. Act, 2019
On careful analysis of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion that inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the deficiency in service and as a result the complainant was constrained to file this complaint before the District Commission claiming the relief as sought for. In that view of the matter the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable.
Further this District Commission has found that the complainant is a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of contract even after receipt of the consideration in advance for the same on the part of the O.Ps are deficiency of service and as such the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.
We observed the O.Ps service is deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly speaking of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.Ps with a view to hoodwinking gullible consumers. That due to unfair trade practice, delay, negligence and deficiency in service by the O.Ps the complainant sustained financial loss mental agony, damages etc hence the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation under circumstances of the case.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
O R D E R
In resultant the complaint petition is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps are directed to return back the defective product from the complainant inter alia to refund price of 13 Eye Gas Analyser a sum of Rs. 1,59,300/- to the complainant.
The entire directions shall be carried out with in 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of this C.C. case i.e. on Dt. 22.6.2018 till realization. Copies be served to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.. Pronounced in the open forum on 12th . day of March, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
