Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Chandra. Guin, Member.
The complaint petition in a nutshell is that the Complainant Mr. Habib Mostafa intended to purchase an inverter and went to the showroom of Sova Steel Furniture (OP). OP assured him that Luminous Inverter was a good one and could be operated with only one battery. Thus, the Complainant Purchased the Luminous Inverter VNL, Inverter Vanilla having SL. No. 17JB85C1022749 worth Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) with tax invoice No.1382 dated 22.06.20 with financial assistance from HDB financial service. During installation of the said inverter, the electrician found that the inverter was not started with one battery. Therefore the electrician told the Complainant that the inverter would be started with four batteries of 12 volts each and this type of inverter is used only for industrial purpose. Subsequently, the Complainant informed the matter to the OP and wanted to change the inverter and battery with low voltage capacity which the Op assured him. But the OP changed the battery only and refunded Rs.13,000/- for the same and did not change the inverter. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the O.Ps showroom several times for changing the inverter but Op did not pay heed to his words. Later, the Complainant sent massage through whatsapp on 09.07.20 and 30.07.20 for changing the inverter but no reply came from their end. On 04.08.20 the Complainant filed written complaint before the OP through registered post which the OP received on 25.08.20 but on reply was sent by the OP. Thus this act of the OP caused the Complainant to suffer from financial loss as he was paying EMI to the financial Company and at the same time his business was running dull due to non-functioning of the inverter. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed this case praying for relief. He prayed for a change of the inverter of 12 volts operated with one battery or refund of Rs.16,800/- for cost of inverter with up to date interest and Rs.200/- as balance amount of battery and to pay Rs. 40,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
OP contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. OP in his defence plea stated that the model of the inverter was the choice of the Complainant which he choose from the site of the internet and he had no knowledge about the functioning of the said inverter as he did not deal in such model of inverter. He sold the same on request from the Complainant for which he purchased it from the other dealer of Siliguri, Named Progressive Enterprise. Being dormant with one battery, the Complainant wanted to change the inverter with battery but OP refunded the cost of the battery on return of the same only violating the terms and conditions as there was good relationship between the Complainant and the OP since long time. After receiving whatsapp massage and a letter from the Complainant requesting to change the inverter, this OP told the Complainant over phone that he was not the authorised dealer of this model of inverter and purchase of the said inverter was done with financial assistance from HDB financial service. Therefore, this OP has no authority to change or resell the same. The financial service Company is the sole authority to change or resell the same. So, the OP told the Complainant to request the financial Company of the inverter for the same but the Complainant was reluctant to do so. Moreover, the Op stated that there was no such terms and conditions in the warranty card which can make the OP liable to change the inverter if the Complainant prays for and suffering of the Complainant if any was not caused by the act of the OP but due to his own ignorance.
Points for consideration
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the Complainant entitled to any relief?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
The Complainant intended to purchase one inverter with battery about which he came to know from the site of internet. He showed the model of such inverter to the Op which the OP did not deal in. But the OP told the Complainant the same model to be supplied if Complainant placed an order for the same. Thus, after the order being placed by the Complainant, the OP purchased it from the Progressive Enterprise, Siliguri (Invoice, Annexure-1 of OP) and sold the same to the Complainant (Invoice, Annexure-A of Complainant. From the invoice of the two parties it is clear that there is profit incurred by the OP out of this transaction. During installation the inverter became dormant with one battery as it required four batteries of 12 volts each which he came to know from his electrician who came to install the same. The matter of non-functioning of the inverter was intimated to the OP by the Complainant and he wanted to change the inverter with an inverter of low voltage capacity as it is used for industrial purpose only. The Op assured the Complainant that the said inverter was good one and would be operated with one battery. From the above fact it is clear that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Out of that good relationship with the OP, the Complainant requested the OP to change the inverter but the OP told the Complainant that he was not the authorised dealer of this model of inverter and the said inverter was hypothecated to HBD financial service who is the sole authority to change or resell the inverter. So, the Complainant has to appeal to the HBD financial service for change or resell of the said inverter if he desires to do so. But the Complainant was reluctant to do so. Moreover, the OP argued that there is no such terms and conditions in the warranty card (vide firisti of the Complainant) which enables the Complainant to change the inverter and suffering of the Complainant was not caused by the act of the OP but due to his own ignorance. It is seen from the aforesaid discussion that the OP refunded the cost of the battery but did not change or refund the cost of the inverter despite repeated request by the Complainant with some pretext.
The OP was requested to change the inverter with battery but on the one hand the OP refunded the cost of the battery with return of the same violating the term and condition with a plea of good relationship with the Complainant and did not change the inverter/ refund the cost of the inverter on the other with another plea of having financed the inverter by the HBD financial service(Annexure-2 of OP).
Both the inverter and the battery were purchased by the Complainant taking loan from the HBD financial services. The cost of one item of the said transaction was refunded but another was not changed nor the cost of the same was refunded by the OP. The Op could have changed the inverter with other model as he is the dealer of the same Company or refunded the cost of the same as they possess good relation. This act of the OP prompted the Complainant to take recourse of law. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Therefore, this point is answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2.
From the aforesaid discussion it is crystal clear that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused the Complainant to incur financial loss in his business and to bear a burden of EMI of his loan due to which he suffered from mental pain and agony. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that the Complainant is entitled to get relief for the complaint in his instant case.
Therefore, this point is also answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently, the case of the Complainant succeeds on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost. The OP is directed to refund the cost of the inverter Rs.16,800/- with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of purchase. The OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost and total awarded sum is payable within one month from the date of this order failing which it will carry an interest of 6% per annum till its realisation. The Complainant is also directed to return the disputed inverter to the OP on complying with this order of the Commission by the OP.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
