Sri Sudhakar Senapothi    - Member.       

Complainant Anil Kumar Panigrahi has filed this case u/s 12 of CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for providing him an old and used fan and not taking back in spite of requests made to him and praying therein for direction to the OP to provide with him a new fan in a sealed pack, the cost of the fan be refunded to him with interest @ 16% per annum and cost and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on different heads.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that on 19.05.2019, the complainant had been to the shop of the Opposite Party to purchase a pedestal fan where he met the son of the owner of the shop. The complainant expressed his intention to purchase a pedestal fan and he falsely told him that there is only one fan of CASTO which was exhibited in front of the shop and no other fan with sealed packing is available at the shop. As it was a hot day, the petitioner was suffering a lot and purchased the pedestal fan under assurance of the shopkeeper that the fan is a new one having no defect and if any defect will be detected, the fan will be replaced immediately. On the basis of the assurance, the complainant paid the entire price of Rs. 1180/- to the shopkeeper and he delivered the fan and provided a hand receipt as a token of acknowledgement of receipt of the cost of the fan. On the same night, he found that the safety cover of the fan was damaged and the fan was not functioning properly which was having an inherent defect and the fan appeared to be a second hand one. On the next day, he went to the shop with the fan and requested the proprietor to replace the defective fan and provide a proper GST bill to him. The proprietor refused to replace the same or refund the cost thereof for which, he approached this Commission for the reliefs as discussed in preceding paragraphs.

2.           After receipt of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through his Advocate and filed written version. In his written version, he stated that on 18.05.2019 when he was there in his shop, the complainant approached him for purchase of a pedestal fan and one pedestal fan was shown to him. As the cost was high, the complainant choose an ordinary fan of CASTO make which was exhibited in the shop. The complainant himself selected the fan covered in a plastic bag and the complainant himself took trial of the fan and being satisfied, he purchased the fan at the price of Rs. 1357/- with cash payment. He was issued invoice No. 483 dt.18.05.2019 in the name of Satish Ranjan Panigrahi (A.K.Panigrahi) giving his address as resident of Nuapada. After trial and payment and issue of receipt, the fan was repacked in a plastic cover in presence of the complainant who took delivery of the same and left the shop with original receipt which is in possession of the complainant. The counter foil of original is with him. It was further stated that there was no damage or defect in the fan or the body when the complainant took delivery of the product and it was functioning very well. After 2 days on 20.05.2019, the complainant came to the shop of the Opposite Party and showed the fan stating it as defective. It was found that in the backside cover of the blades (rotating blades) a thread wire  was missing from the cover which was not the condition at the time of delivery and most likely it was damaged by the improper handling of the complainant himself either during transit or at his home. Since the complainant is an educated consumer and government servant, and it is very much improbable that he would purchase an old and damage fan by paying money. The complainant wanted to replace the fan which the Opposite Party did not agree as the complaint made by the complainant was not due to his fault but because of the fault of the customer. It is further stated that the OP is a retailer of the electrical goods running his shop for the last 30 years having reputation in the commercial circle for his honesty and integrity. As he refused to replace the product, he left the shop with threat that the next meet with the OP will be in the Court. He contacted the complainant and requested him to take back a new fan even though it was not his fault only to maintain his goodwill and reputation and maintain good customer relation, but the complainant declined to take the new fan even offered by him. On 06.06.2019, the complainant and his son came to his shop and demanded a fresh GST Bill. But, the OP asked him to submit the original bill so that he will cancel the same and issue a fresh one. But, both of them left by shouting in a loud voice that he will file a criminal case against him in the Court of law. Under the facts and circumstances, he prays for dismissal of the case with costs.

3.           The complainant in support of this case has filed a photo copy of one receipt dt. 19.05.2019 and an acknowledgement dt. 20.05.2019. On the other hand, the OP has filed the copy of the duplicate bill, copy of the invoice dt. 18.05.2019. Either of the parties have not adduced any oral evidence.

4.           In this case, the complainant has not stated anywhere that the fan has warranty against the manufacturing defect by the manufacturer, but has pleaded that any shopkeeper’s son had promised to replace the fan in the event of the defect. So, it is crystal clear that the product does not carry any warrantee of the manufacturer against manufacturing defect.

5.           From the pleadings and counter pleadings of the parties, it is very much clear that the product in question had developed some defect after its sale and the complainant brought it to the knowledge of the shopkeeper. It is settled principle of law that the seller/service centre of the manufacturer is under obligation to provide after sale service to the customer if any defect is pointed out in the product. The product only can be replaced only when it is being incapable of remedied. In the present case, it is admitted by the complainant that on 26^th day of May 2019 at 11.25 a.m., the Opposite Party from his mobile No. 8456966941 intimated him that the defective fan has been repaired and expressed his inability to further replace the defective old fan. The complainant has not denied the fact through affidavit or by any other means that he is not an educated person and not a government servant. It is very much unlikely that a conscious consumer will purchaser an old fan without proper test and will pay the cost thereof and bring it to his house. The complainant has also not denied nor has challenged the copy of the invoice filed by the Opposite Party in any manner. Since the defect in the fan is removed by the Opposite Party within a period of 6 days and he gave intimation to the complainant to receive it, no amount of deficiency can be attributed to the Opposite Party and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is disposed off with a direction to the Opposite Party to provide the complainant with a new fan of the same make and model if it is available or to refund the cost thereof within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order. Parties to bear their own cost.