Date of filing:- 08/04/2014
Date of Order:- 15/02/2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 12 of 2014.
Pramila Giri, aged about 40(forty) years, D/o. Late Sahadev Giri, R/o ward No.18(eighteen), Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tahasil and Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... Complainant.
The Manager (Care), Usha International Ltd., Plot NO. 15, Institutional area, Sector-32, Gurgaon- 122001 (Haryana).
The Proprietor, Sound and Steel, Bargarh, At. Near Thana Chowk, Main Road, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh-768028 (Odisha). .... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.N. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri D. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri J.R. Dip, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Mrs Anjali Behera .... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.(w)I/c President.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.15/02/2016. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, Member.
The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 and the gist of the Complaint follows here under :-
The Opposite Party No.1(one) i.e. The manager on behalf of Usha International Ltd. is the manufacture of Usha brand of cooler wherein the Opposite Party No.2(two) is the local dealer to sell the Usha product.
The Complainant had purchased one Usha Honey well CLP 601PM air cooler, bearing and serial No. 131016610 from the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.30/04/2014 for her personal and domestic use by paying Rs.11,500/-(Rupees eleven thousand five hundred)only and the retail invoice and warranty card for the same was also issued to her. As per the instruction of the service man of the Opposite Party No.2(two), the Complainant operated the cooler and using the cooler for a day or two she could found it not functioning properly i.e. not throwing air, the blade of the cooler fan not rotating properly and balancely besides not having any cooling effect.
The Complaint further reveals that, the Complainant brought this fact to the notice of the Opposite Party No.2(two) immediately and as per the instruction of Opposite Party No.2(two) i.e. the local dealer handed over the cooler to Opposite Party No.2(two) for necessary correction if any mechanical defect is found and to work it properly. Even after a passage of more than one month the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not return back the air cooler to the Complainant after removing the alleged defects found in it. This fact was also intimated to the Opposite Party No.1(one) over telephone help line number but there was also no response to the problem of the customer. The legal notice Dt.18/06/2014 of the Complainant was also not replied by the Opposite Parties. The Complaint further reveals that, the very aim of purchasing an air cooler by the Complainant was defeated and she had to bear the panic of the hot summer. The aforesaid act and conducts of the Opposite Parties amount to deficiency and negligence in consumer service towards the Complainant which also an unfair trade practice and the Complainant had to under go both physical and mental agony besides monetary loss which she(Complainant) modestly calculated the compensation to a tune of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only besides either refund of monitoring value of the cooler or to replace one new cooler of the same brand to the Complainant which is also the prayer of the Complainant in the Complaint petition.
The Complainant relies upon the following documents in support of her contentions in the Complaint.
Xerox Copy of Pleader Notice Dt.18/06/2014 of the Complainant. (3 Sheets)
Original Postal money receipts. (1 Sheet)
Original A.D. Card.(1 Sheet)
Xerox Copy of retail invoice Dt.30/04/2014. (1 Sheet).
Service and warranty card. (1 Sheet).
Bearing noticed the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite party No.2(two) appeared through their legal counsels and filed their respective versions denying almost all the allegations of the Complainant.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version contends that the Opposite Party No.2(two) is his local dealer to sell the products and the Opposite Party No.1(one) is only liable to provide after sale service in case of any defects, faults and problem found in the product sold to the consumers and he (the Opposite Party No.1(one)) shall not be liable for the acts, deeds and action done by the Opposite Party No.2(two) in his personal capacity. Further this Opposite Party No.1(one) contends that this Complaint is not maintainable in absence of affidavit of the Complainant in the petition and also on the reasons of false, frivolous, misconceived and vexatious claim.
Further the OP No.1(one) in its version contends that the Complainant has concealed and suppressed material facts that the authorized technician of the manufacture company had been to the shop of local dealer on Dt.26/06/2014 and checked the air cooler, found the Motor, blade and pump of cooler in good working condition and a certificate to that effect was also issued by the technician which is filed in the complaint as Annexure -A. Further this Opposite Party had undertaken to bear all the expenses if the cooler is sent to any laboratory for testing of its function or cost of any independent mechanic if engaged on this behalf. This fact of improper functioning of cooler was first came to his knowledge after receiving the pleader notice.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version admitted the purchase of cooler on Dt. 30/04/2014 by the Complainant from his local dealer but all other allegations like the cooler was used by the Complainant as per the instruction mentioned in the warranty card, defect found in the cooler after one or two days of use, the Opposite Party No.2(two) instructed the Complainant to bring the cooler to his shop for rectifications of inherent mechanical defect, after the passage of more then one month the cooler had not been delivered to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2(two) after due rectification of fault and defect found in it causing deficiency and negligence in rendering service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant are specifically denied. In contrary the Opposite Party No.1(one) has demanded the strict proof of the allegations levelled by the Complainant.
This Opposite Party therefore prays for the direction of Forum to dismiss the Complaint, to award compensation for physical agony and loss of good will and reputation, to award cost of litigation so also any further order which the forum deem fit in favour of Opposite Party No.1(one) against the Complainant.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) in support of his contentions relied upon the xerox copy of certificate issued by the technician of Santosh Kumar Mohanty, Mahaveer Enterprises in favour of Opposite Party No.2(two).
The Opposite Party No.2(two) in its version contends that, he is the dealer and retail seller of Usha Honey Well air cooler only and technical persons are appointed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) for rendering service of the products. Further this Opposite Party says the Complainant after physical verification and examination of various model of air coolers and after being satisfied with the performance of this alleged cooler had purchased the same.
Further the Opposite Party No.2(two) in its versions contends that, the Complainant after two days came to the dealer and Complained about the performance of cooler and inspite of repeated instruction without approaching the service centre for necessary correction and rectification of fault in the cooler forcibly left the cooler in the realer shop and demanded a new one. The version of the this Opposite Party further reveals that he can not exchange the cooler with a new one without the certificate of service centre and instruction from the Opposite Party No.1(one).
The Opposite Party No.2(two) in its version has denied the allegation of deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant in any manner so also any unfair trade practice and prays for dismissal of the Complaint against him.
Heard pleadings of the Parties. Perused the documents annexed to the case record and the memo of argument of the Complainant, the Forum found following points for determination.
Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the Opposite Parties ?
Whether any strict proof is attributed by the Complainant to prove the air cooler sold to her by the Opposite Party No.2(two) was a faulty one having so many trouble ?
If there is any deficiency in rendering consumer service by the Opposite Parties to wards the Complainant ?
For what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
The Complainant has admittedly purchased the alleged air cooler from the Opposite Party No.2(two) for her personal and family use and money receipt of Rs. 11,500/-(Rupees eleven thousand five hundred)only dated 30/04/2014is issued infavour of her. Hence the Complainant is a Consumer under the Opposite Parties as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
The Complainant neither opted for physical verification of air cooler by the Forum nor filed any petition before the Forum to send the air cooler to proper laboratory for its mechanical test or opted to engage a local mechanic to probe his allegation of faulty and disorder air cooler sold to her by the Opposite Party No.2(two). The Complainant simply filing a Complaint with a retail invoice does not inspire the confidence of the Forum to arrive at any conclusion as to any mechanical defects on the basis of evidence in Complaint.
The Company technician for the air cooler has issued a letter on Dt. 26/06/2014 to the Opposite Party No.2(two) certifying the motor, blades, pump of the cooler to be good and proper having no defect in the cooler which has been duly received by Manager, Sales and Service on behalf of Opposite Party No.2(two) but the version filed by the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.10/11/2014 does not reveal this fact. So also the Opposite Party No.2(two) has not filed any letter or correspondence made to the Complainant to prove allegation that inspite of repeated instruction the Complainant did not take back the cooler. More over if the air cooler as per the letter of certificate issued by the authorised technician was found to be fit and proper having no mechanical defects still then there is lacking in effort by both the Opposite Parties in not proving the communication to the Complainant to bring back the alleged air cooler to her custody through any documentary evidence before the Forum which is also in somewhat a service deficiency by both the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) to wards the Complainant.
The Complainant is therefore entitled for relief passed in the order portion.
Delving deep into the matter and evidence on record, the Forum order as follows.
O R D E R
The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally liable to deliver the Usha Honey Well CLP 601 PM air cooler bearing SL No. 131016610 to the Complainant in good working condition within thirty days of the date of Order, failing which the Opposite Parties will pay the cost of the Air Cooler i.e. Rs.11,500/-(Rupees eleven thousand five hundred)only to the Complainant within fifteen days there after, failing which the amount of Rs. 11,500/-(Rupees eleven thousand five hundred)only carried interest @ 10%(ten percent) per annum till final payment.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
( Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r. I/c President
