JUDGMENT

1. This Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops for non replacement of the defective good i.e  2000 litter Sintex Ace Antibacterial tank being manufactured by OP 1 & sold by the Op 2   to the complainant. 
2. The complainant seeks for an order directing the OP No.1 to refund Rs.18, 000/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 21.10.2021 and to pay Rs.20, 000/- for damage to the crops & trees  standing near the installation and further direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.30,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards exemplary cost and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. The brief facts  as emerged from the complaint petition and documents filed herewith giving rise to the present  complainant are that, the complainant has purchased one 2000 litter Sintex Ace Antibacterial container from Opposite Party No.2   for  a consideration price of Rs.18,000/- vide Bill No.11108, dt.21.10.2021 being influenced on the attractive features described there in the official website of the OP 1 . The Op 2, on receiving entire cost price of the said product , sent the product to the complainant and  after taking its delivery, the complainant noticed that, the tank was pushed/bent from the middle  line for which the complainant contacted the Opp.Party 2 and requested to replaced the same but the Op 2 replied that ,the product is not defective one and it usually comes bent/pushed due to long transportation and assured the complainant that, it will come to its original shape after filling up water and asked the complainant to install & fill up water in the subject  tank. Accordingly the complainant installed the tank but after installation & when the complainant filled up the subject  tank up its capacity, it could not tolerate water level  and fell down resulting  completely broken damaged . Thereafter, the complainant explained the entire scene to the OP No.2 and requested to resolve his grievance. The OP No.2 duly attended the complainant and asked him to   call in toll free number of Sintex i.e. 1800-121-2764 & to lodge his grievance and as per instruction of Op 2 ,  the complainant called  in the  given toll free number and explained his grievance . On 4.11.2021 the complainant also sent a legal notice to the Op No.1  through his advocate  and after that, the authorized  person  of OP No.1 visited to the spot in order to ascertain the  real facts and  after inspection, the authorized person admitted the fault with the said tank  in front of the complainant  but  denied to reimburse the damages sustained by the complainant  on the ground that, the OP No.1  Company shall be liable only in the case if the company has installed the tank and not by the customer. It is further submitted by the complainant that, at the time of purchase & delivery of product the Opp.Party No.2 did not  discloses about the installation policy of the company and kept under dark about such policy as such the complainant proceeded to install himself. Under such circumstances, the OP No.1 cannot escape from his liability on such baseless ground rather caused  harassment to the consumer/complaint. Hence, this complaint.
4. On being notice, the O.P No.1 & 2 appeared through their Ld.advocate Sri .G.Patnaik and filed written version admitting the facts that, the complainant has purchased a Sintex Tank Model-ACE 2000 liter with a cost of Rs.18,000/- from OP No.2 on 21.10.2021. It is submitted that, the complainant took the Sintex Tank on the very day of purchase was in well condition and all the materials with allied documents were handed over to the complainant with the said tank. The complainant  after all verification  at the shop of Op No.2 choose  to take the tank  and that, the complaint for pushed/ bent  from the middle line of the tank is not  true rather it is an  afterthought &  misconstrue for his self gain. It is further submitted that, before installation of the tank the complainant had never informed any defect of the tank to the OP NO.2 and no instruction was given by the Op NO.2 to the complainant. The bursting of tank is might be some other reason which is kept suppressed by the complainant. It is further submitted by the Ops that, soon after receipt of complaint the Ops sent their technician on 28.10.2021 to visit the tank and its mode of installation. The  technician of the Ops observed  that, the tank die is 53” inches & the base die for installation of tank is 46” inches and that is  the main technical reason  of bursting of the tank .It is further submitted that, the complainant should have prepared the base for installation of tank  in excess diameter than the diameter of tank but in this case the complainant has severely defecated with much less die then the tank for which the water loaded tank bent down around its base causing to its bursting. So the Ops are no way responsible or liable for any damage of the tank. It is further submitted by the Ops that, at the time of purchase and handing over the tank the complainant was advised by the op No.2 to install the tank by his expert plumber for safe installation and smooth function of the tank but the complainant denied & installed the tank through his own man and only due to its defective installation, the tank was burst. With this submission  the Ops denying the petition allegations of deficiency of service & unfair trade practice and urged to  reject the complaint & reliefs as claimed by the complainant.
5. Heard. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission of rival parties.
6. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties placed in the record, the points for consideration before this Commission is whether the subject product i.e Sintex water tank manufactured by the OP 1 &  sold by the Op 2 to the complainant is defective one got damaged causing injuries to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ?
7. Admitted facts of the case are that, the complainant has purchased one Sintex Tank Model-
   ACE 2000 from the Opp.Party No.2 being manufactured by Op 1 paying the cost of Rs. 18,000/- and that, the said water tank was burst /damaged just after installation and that, the Ops refused to replace the same with new one on the ground that ,the water tank was burst/damaged only due to its defective installation by the complainant himself.
8. As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record ; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
9. The  complainant, to substantiate his contention has filed the following documents:- (i) web –copy of feature described for Sintex Ace Antibacterial and copy of bill vide No.11108 dt.21.10.2021 vide annexure -1 & 2 respectively,(ii) Two numbers of Photograph of the alleged tank vide Annexure -3,(iii) copy of legal notice dt.04.11.2021 vide Annexure -4. Complainant also lead his evidence by filling affidavit evidence as prescribed under C.P. Act, the averments of which are corroborating with the averment of the complainant remain un-rebutted. Hence the contention of the complainant petition is proved on affidavit.
10. It is the submission of the Ops that, the complainant should have prepared the base for installation of tank  in excess diameter than the diameter of tank whereas the complainant has severely defecated with much less die then the tank for which only  the water loaded tank bent down around its base causing to bursting and it is further submitted that, at the time of purchase & handing over the tank the complainant was advised by the Op  No.2 for installation of the subject  the tank by the  expert plumber of the company for safe installation and smooth function of the tank but the complainant denied & installed the tank through his man and only due to its defective installation the tank was burst and there was no defects with the subject product . However, no cogent evidence is adduced by the Op to hold that, the complainant had not followed the procedure of installation of the subject tank as prescribed and that the complainant has violate any advice of the Ops for installation of subject tank. 
11. The Ops have failed to adduce any evidence affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act, 2019 to substantiate their contention though sufficient opportunities have been availed .
12. Here it is observed that, the Op 2 has sold a defective product being manufactured by Op 1 which  got damaged soon after its installation causing  financial hardship & mental agony to the complainant and when the request for replacement  of the defective product with new one is not responded, finding no other option, the complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance .The complaint is found to be in time and well within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Commission. 
13. It is not disputed that, the Op 2 has sold the product of OP 1 to the complainant as such it is the bounden duty of the OPs jointly to rectify the defects or to replace the defective product with new one free from defects without charging any extra price but it is found that, the Ops though attended the complainant but failed to remove the defects & to replace the same with new one free from defects. When a product got damaged soon after its installation and the Op failed to proved any negligence of the complainant while installation of the subject product certainly proved the inherent manufacturing defect of the goods and the Ops have failed to rectify the defects for proper further use of the goods/tank or have replaced it with new one to the satisfaction of the consumer/complainant certainly a deficient service & unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.
14. The complainant purchased the subject product by paying the cost  amount of Rs.18,000/- for his personal use believing the attractive features of the product but said product got no use .The wish of use of the subject tank is defeated as it  got damage soon after its installation & the OPs failed to replace the defective goods sold to the complainant with new one till date  is nothing but  unfair trade practice & deficient  service on the part of the Ops no doubt caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant as such  the complainant is entitle  to be compensated by the OPs . However, nothing cogent evidence is adduced to hold any damage to the crops & trees standing near the installation as averred by the complainant.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OP No. 2 (two) has sold a defective product / Sintex Tank Model-ACE 2000 liter for Rs.18,000/- to the complainant deliberately withholding shortcomings of the product  and the Ops failed to  replace the said defective goods sold to the complainant till date is nothing but  unfair trade practice & deficient  service on the part of the Ops no doubt caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant as such  the complainant is entitle  to be compensated by the OPs . Hence, we are of the opinion that , a new defect free Sintex Tank Model-ACE 2000 liter model with fresh warranty is to be supplied by replacing the said  damaged product sold to the complainant  without charging any extra amount to the complainant or else the Ops may return back the cost price i.e Rs.18,000/- with interest @18% P.A to the complainant within a stipulated time period .  Further the complainant is entitled for award litigation cost & compensation. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part with the following directions.

ORDER

The Opposite Party No.2(two)  is directed to  replace  the     Sintex Tank Model-ACE 2000 liter  with a new one of the same model with fresh warranty to the complainant without charging any extra amount and to pay monetary  compensation of Rs.5,000/- which include litigation  cost  to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receiving of this order   or in alternative pay back the cost of the said product  i.e. Rs.18,000/- with  interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e.06.06.2022  till its actual payment with  litigation cost of Rs 5,000/- to the complainant.  The O.P No.2 is at liberty to recover the awarded amount from the O.P. No.1 at his own cost.  It is further directed to comply the aforesaid order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order falling which the Ops will be jointly liable to pay Rs.100/-(one thousand) per day as delayed compensation to the complainant till compliance of this order The consumer complaint is party allowed in the above terms, & pending application if any is also stands disposed of accordingly.

            Dictated and corrected by me.

      Sd/-          

President

      I   agree.

   Sd/-          

   Member   

         Pronounced, in the open Commission today on this 18^th October  2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly. Judgment could not be pronounced on time in want of quorum. 

The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet  to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission .Ordered accordingly.