Orissa

Jajapur

CC/34/2016

Binori Printers Represented by its Propiter,Jayadev Dhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Whirlpool of India Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 24th day of April,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.34 of 2016

Binori Printers at Gopabandhu Chhaka,Jajpur Road

Dist.Jajpur represented by its Proprietor,Jayadev Dhal

S/O Chaitan Ch.Dhal, Vill. Natapada , P.O./P.S.Jajpur Road

Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1. Whirlpool of India Ltd, Corporate Office,plot No.40,sector.44,Gurugaon

122002,represented by Vice-president sales and Marketing

2. Prasant Biswal, (Patel) of M/S Biswal Sales proprietor dealer of Whirlpool

India Ltd, Bank Street, At/P.O. Jajpur Road , Dist. Jajpur .

                                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                                     Sri G.Ch.Panda, Miss B.R.Rout, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties : 1 and 2                          None.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   24.04.2017.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV DAS, PRESIDENT .

This is a dispute which has been filed from the side of the petitioner alleging not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice due to supply of defective  A.C by the  O.Ps.

            The fact lies in the narrow campus is that the petitioner had purchased one Whirlpool make window Air condition such as 1.5 ton  MAGICOOL DLX III on 28.05.15 at the cost of Rs.25,500/-. from  O.P.no.2. His further allegation is that the O.p.no.1 is the manufacturer and service provider of the said A.C and due to lack of stock the O.P.no.2 supplied  the A.C , on the next  date of purchase and installed  the A.C in the office of the petitioner after two months of the delivery. At the time of installation of A.C the power supply was cut off in the area as a result the performance of A.C could not be ascertained at the time of its installation. Thereafter when the power supply was restored the A.C did not give cooling effect. The complainant intimated  this fact verbally to the O.P.no.2 .  The O.P.no.2 assured the petitioner for rectification the problem shortly . Thereafter when the next summer season came, in 2016 the petitioner repeatedly approached the O.P.no.2 to rectify the manufacturing defect of the A.C but the O.P.no.2 frequently bought  the  time for rectification of problem of the A.C. Lastly the petitioner made a complaint to the customer care of O.P.no.1 and it was registered on 14.04.16 with complaint No.BS0416002443. Thereafter the O.P.no.1 replied to solve the problem shortly but till date there is no effect  . Neither the  O.P.no.1 nor  O.P.no.2 has come  to solve the problem. The A.C provide comprehensive  warrantee of one year from the date of purchase. It is the duty of O.P.no.2  to provide service after sales but the O.P no.2 knowingly supplied  a damaged A.C, for which  the O.P.no.2 regularly is  avoiding to provide the service .

            Accordingly the petitioner filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.ps to replace the A.C with same model and capacity or return  back the price  of A.C with 12% interest from the date of purchase  and   award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.

            After receipt of the notices  the O.Ps. neither appeared nor filed any written version after  several opportunity given by this Fora. Hence they have been set-expartee .

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate of the petitioner. Perused the record along with annexed documents filed from the side of the petitioner and came to the conclusion as follows:

1.It is cristal clear that the petitioner has purchased a Whirlpool make Window A.C such as model 1.5 ton Magicool  at the cost of Rs.25,500/- from O.P.no.2 vide retail invoice No. RI (C)JKR-1275 dt.28^th May 2015 issued by O.P.no.2 who  is the Authorized  dealer of said company of O.P.no.1 .

2.After installation of the A.C the petitioner informed to the O.p.no.2 about the defect of the A.C and subsequently lodged the complain before O.p.no.1 vide complaint No.BS0416002443                      dt.14.04.16.

3.The O.p.no.1 vide their email dt.30^th April 2016 intimated to the petitioner that the required part (condenser) needs to be replaced on the said A.C and is not available in the service center of O.p.no.1 and same will be replaced within  some days .

4.It is the clear fact that the petitioner purchased the A.C on 28.05.15 and the  first                 complain was lodged on 14.05.16 as per mail dt.30.04.2016 of  O.P no.1 who is the manufacturer and service provider of the said A.C,  who took time to  replace the defective parts as per email intimation.

5.On the other hand  the O.Ps  neither appeared nor contested the dispute  .We are constrained to accept the uncontroverted statement mention of the petitioner made in the complaint petition.

            As per observation of Hon’ble Odisha  State Commission reported in 2003-CLT-Vol-96-p-15 .C.D.Case No.37/02  wherein it is held that:

            In absence of written version by the O.P, the  Commission is bound to accept the uncontroverted statement of the complaint petition.”

And

2013(1)CPR-0507-N.C ,wherein  it is held that:-

            “In case written version not filed after several opportunity,   it has no defence on merit.”

Hence this order :

            The dispute is allowed against the O.Ps. on exparte.  The O.P.no.1 who is the manufacturer and service  provider is  directed  to replace the defective  A.C either in same model or same capacity  within one month after receipt of this order, failing which the O.P.no.2 shall refund the price of the A.C after taking  back the defective from the petitioner along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) to the petitioner out of which the compensation amount 50%  shall be recovered  by O.P.no.2 from O.P.no.1  . No cost.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 24th day of April,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.