Orissa

Rayagada

CC/94/2021

P.Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Laxmi Refrigeration - Opp.Party(s)

self

11 Nov 2021

ORDER

                     DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__94_______/2021                                      Date.  11 .11. 2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

                                                                       

.

P.Mishra,    Near Jagannath Complex, Collectorate  Road,  Po/Dist: Rayagada , 765 001  (Odisha). Cell No. 7978076647.                                    …. Complainant.                 Versus.

1.The Manager,  Blue Star Ltd., CBO- ACRSD, II Pokharan Road, Majiwada, Thane- 400601.           

2.The Manager, Blue Star Ltd., 3A, Satya Nagar, 2^nd. Floor,Bhubaneswar-751007                                                                                       ….                    Opposite parties.

 

For    the complainant :- Self.

For the O. Ps    :- Set  exparte..

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification of Blue  star  A/C set  which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief  facts  of the case are summarized here under.

            .That  the complainant had  purchased a 1.5 Ton  blue star split A.C.  Model No. 5 HW 18 SATX  bearing   Sl. No. 216V01869 (ODU) 16A00281 (IDU) from the  Rayagada Town Dealer  i.e. Laxmi Refrigeration bearing  retail invoice No. 691 Dt. 17.4.2016  on payment  of consideration   a sum of Rs. 41,500/-  along with  V-Guard  Stabiliser for Rs.7,500/-.  That  the above  set  found defective  within the warranty period. The O.Ps  service personal are assured  to the complainant the  defects  of the above set automatically removed and will  be well function. But the above set not functioning well and in the summer season  the complainant  facing a lot of problems  due to non running of  above A.C. The  above sets  problems are  narrated to the service centre    but  till date the complainant has not received any response from the O.Ps.        That  the company  had  fixed  aluminium  wire  instead of   Copper wire in the  above A.C. for which  the above  Aluminium  wire  is not  working properly  and continues  defects are  coming from the above A.C. from time to time.  Hence this C.C. case  filed by the  complainant and prays the  District Commission direct the O.Ps   to  refund the price of the  above set   and to order to pay  compensation and cost of  expenses and such other as the commission  deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed  the O.Ps  neither entering in to appear before the District Commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  5 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 4 (four) months   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps  are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps.   were  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit  against the O.Ps

          Heard  arguments from the   complainant..   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by   both  the   parties.

This District Commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

        FINDINGS.

                From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased   a   a 1.5 Ton  blue star split A.C.  Model No. 5 HW 18 SATX  bearing   Sl. No. 216V01869 (ODU) 16A00281 (IDU) from the  Rayagada Town Dealer  i.e. Laxmi Refrigeration bearing  retail invoice No. 691 Dt. 17.4.2016  on payment  of consideration   a sum of Rs. 41,500/-  along with  V-Guard  Stabiliser for Rs.7,500/ (copies of the  invoice is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after delivery with in  warranty period the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the OPs for necessary repair in turn the OPs  paid deaf  ear.   Hence this C.C.  case filed by the complainant.

.           From the records it is seen that, the complainant has filed Xerox copy of purchase bill which is in the file marked as Annexure-I.  Hence it is abundantly clear that, the complainant has repeatedly approached the OPs  for the defective of above  set with complaints where in the OPs  not heard.

            On examining the whole transactions, it is pertinent to mention here that, there is One year valid warranty for the alleged above set and the defect arose with in warranty  period  of purchase. As the OP No.2(Manufacturer)  deliberately lingering to file their written version or any other documents after lapses of above 07 months, and observing the present situation, and nothing adversary to the complainant as adduced by the OP. The District Commission  relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that, the alleged  set has inherent defect and there is vivid deficiency in service by the OPs declining to redress the grievances of his consumers i.e.  the present complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the said set along with such substantial compensation for all such harassment having been impounded with mental agony and deprivation of the use for the same  for long time  and so also the cost of litigation. We found there is deficiency in service by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

            On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the commission is inclined to allow the complaint against the O.P  No.2 (Manufacturer).

                                                            O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on exparte against the O.Ps.

The O.Ps are directed to  refund  price  of   A.C set  a sum of Rs.41,500/- (Rupees forty one  thousand  five hundred  )only  besides  Rs.4,000/-  damages towards mental agony  inter alia Rs.1,000/-  towards   litigation expenses.

            .

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in  30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.   

Pronounced in the open forum on          11 ^th.      day of    November,   2021.

 MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT