SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (U/s-35 of the C. P .Act, 2019) (here-in-after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” against the Ops.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that on 30.03.2017 he purchased one Inverter with battery (Luca Power Guard 200 AH Tubular) of Su-kam power systems Ltd for Rs.23,201/- from OP No.1. As the inverter was found defective, the Ops replaced the same and installed another one soon after delivery. The inverter and battery in question is covering guarantee period for 24 months. After five months from the date of purchase, the said inverter has not supplied power properly for which the complainant informed the matter to OP No.1. On 16.8.2017, the mechanic of OP No.1 repaired the same. Again on 5.4.2018, said inverter was also found defective to which the complainant made a complaint before OP No.1 which was repaired on 12.4.2018. Two months thereafter, on 13.6.2018, the inverter has not supplied power and the complainant intimated the said fact to the Ops, but the Ops paid a deaf ear to it. The battery which was supplied to the complainant was not a new one, rather, it was an old one. Thereafter, the complainant made several allegations in respect of the defective battery, but the Ops did not extend their help and thereby committed deficiency in service against him. Therefore, being aggrieved with the deficiency in service by the Ops, the complainant was constrained to file the present case against the Ops claiming relief, as sought for in the complaint petition. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record -
- Photocopy of retail invoice issued by OP No.1.
- Photocopy of warranty card.
- Photocopy of service report.
- Photocopy of user’s manual.
3. In the case at hand, the notices were issued against the Ops. On receipt of notice, both the Ops appeared and filed their separate written version.
4. OP No.1, in his written version, admitted the fact of purchase of inverter in question by the complainant from him. OP No.1 has stated, inter alia, that he is a dealer and OP No.2 is the manufacturing company. The complainant has not requested to this OP for replacement of his defective inverter. The complainant has not come to his counter either to exchange the same nor has stated any problem occurred in his purchased inverter. Thus, the present OP has not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant, as alleged.
5. OP No.2, in his written version, stated that their company is a reputed manufacturer and dealer of Su-Kam brand batteries/inverters of international quality and passed through stringent test before removal from its manufacturing unit to be distributed and sold in the market. It believes that the true customer’s satisfaction can be evoked only when a good product is backed by responsive and attentive service and after sales support. It is further stated that after receipt of the complaint from the complainant, their service engineer visited his premises and replaced the control card and make the system in good working condition. Again, on complaint, their service engineer visited the premises of the complainant, but he refused to repair and filed this false and fabricated case. It is also stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the inverter and this OP No.2 is ready to remove the problems, if any. In view of the above, OP No.2 has stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
6. In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a Consumer?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
F I N D I N G S
7. In the present case, it is to be seen how far the complainant is proved himself to be a consumer as required U/s 2(7) (i) & (ii) of the Act. On perusal of the documents filed on behalf of the complainant vide Annexure-1, it is seen that the complainant had purchased the inverter and battery on payment of Rs.23,201/- from OP No.1. On the other hand, OP No.1 has not challenged the fact of purchase of the aforesaid goods from him nor the OP No.2 has challenged that the goods purchased by the complainant is not their product. Therefore, it is clearly established that the complainant is a customer under the Ops. Therefore, it can safely be held that the complainant is a consumer, as required under the Act.
8. For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of the case, the Issues No. ii, iii & iv are taken up together. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that the complainant has not requested him for replacement of his defective inverter nor has come to his counter to exchange the same. It is further submitted that the complainant has not attended his counter for shorting out any problem occurred in his purchased inverter. In this connection, the Authorized Person on behalf of OP No.2 submitted that on receipt of complaint from the complainant, their service engineer visited the premises and replaced the control card and make the system in good working condition and again, on further complaint, their service engineer visited the premises of the complainant, but he denied to repair the same. Further, it is emphatically submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the inverter and this OP No.2 is ready to remove the problems, if any.
9. From the above, it is clear that the complainant had purchased one inverter along with battery from OP No.1 and the OP No.2 is the manufacturer of said products, which was found defective and according to the complainant, on two occasions i.e. on 16.8.2017 & 5.4.2018 the inverter in question was found defective and not functioning properly and the defect as alleged was sorted out by the service engineer of OP No.2. The further claim of the complainant that two months thereafter, on 13.6.2018, the inverter has not supplied power and the complainant intimated the said fact to the Ops, but the Ops paid a deaf ear to it. In this connection, OP No.1 has stated that the complainant has not attended his premises personally for the self-same purpose not has made any complaint with regard to his grievance. In this regard, the complainant has not submitted a scrap of paper to show that he had ever visited or intimated the premises of OP No.1 with regard to his complaint.
10. On a bare perusal of the complaint petition, it is found that the complainant had purchased inverter with battery from OP No.1 on 30.3.2017. On 16.8.2017, the defect found in the inverter for the first time was removed by the company and on 12.4.2018, the defect found in the inverter for the second time was also removed by the company. In Para-7 of the complaint petition, it is mentioned that after two months of repairing on 13.6.2018 the same also defective which was also intimated by the complainant to the Ops but the Ops plays hide and seek with him for the same for which he loss mental ability. From the above, one can presume that for the third time the same defect was found in the inverter. But in Para-8 of the complaint petition, it is mentioned that the complainant run pillar to post, as the battery became defective and the complainant was not able to use the same, but the Ops rendered no help to this complainant. In para-7, the complainant alleges about the defect in the inverter whereas in para-8, the complainant alleges about the defect in the battery. In the above premises, the complainant has not satisfied this Commission about his actual problems as to whether the defect was in the inverter or in the battery and under what basis the complainant has based his claim against the Ops. For the sake of argument, it is to be held that the battery in question was found to be a defective one. But in this connection, the complainant has not filed any document from any expert in the respective field to satisfy either the inverter or the battery was found manufacturing defect. From Annexure-3 i.e. service report dated 16.8.2017, it is seen that the Service Engineer requested the customer (complainant) to maintain the load. The complainant has not submitted any document to satisfy this Commission as to whether he has maintained the load and the defect occurred either in the inverter or battery does not have any relation to the load factor. Further, on perusal of Annexure-2 i.e. warranty card, it is found that the warranty card was not fulfilled the terms and conditions as mentioned in Serial No.4 and thus, it bears no evidentiary value.
11. From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present case and the same is not maintainable. Further, the Ops are found not guilty of deficiency in service. Consequently, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs, as claimed in the complaint petition.
Hence, it is ordered –
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 9th day of July, 2024 under signature & seal of the Commission.
