Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Managing Director, Rajdeep Energies Pvt. Ltd v. Vipin Kumar Singh & 3 Ors

Managing Director, Rajdeep Energies Pvt. Ltd v. Vipin Kumar Singh & 3 Ors

(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)

First Appeal No. 311/2013 | 30-05-2013

Delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Complainant/respondent purchased Triplett Inverters with DC Power Pack-600 Watt-3 Units in the form of Power Backup Solution for various uses including the running of the petrol pump. Respondent paid Rs.4.60 Lac to the OP-1 for purchase of the aforesaid Power Backup Solution. The aforesaid three Inverters under the three Power Backup Solution worked satisfactorily for three months but on 08.06.2009 two Units became faulty and stopped working as a result of which, the services were disrupted. The complainant/respondent lodged a complaint about the aforesaid fault to the dealer who got the Units checked, but due to technical problems the dealer could not make the Units functional. The problem was intimated by the dealer to the dealer to the appellant manufacturer and its Director through email on 14.07.2009. When the problem was not sorted out within 15 days, the dealer made another written request on 01.08.2009 and 10.08.2009 -3- through emails, so that the services of the Petrol Pump could resume by removing the defects in the Units. The complainant also made complaint on the Customer Center but that also did not work. On 16.06.2009 the remaining third Unit also became faulty and stopped working. As per the Service Agreement, the company was bound to remove the defects by sending its engineers within two hours of receiving of the complaint. In the present case, all the three Power Backup Solutions became faulty and stopped working. Respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the State Commission alleging that the dealer as well as the appellant manufacturer did not make any effort to remove the defects as per agreement. Appellant was duly served. It engaged a counsel. No Written Statement was filed for a period of three years. The State Commission proceeded ex parte against the appellant and allowed the complaint. Appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,46,080/- to the respondent towards the costs of the inverters as well as for the mental agony suffered by the respondent for the loss of business. Appellant was directed to pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount was to carry interest @ 12% p.a. -4- Averments made in the complaint by the respondent remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. Appellant in spite due service did not file Written Statement or contest the case. The State Commission taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct which remained unrebutted and uncontroverted, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.10,46,080/- as against the claim of Rs.33,46,080/-. In the absence of any denial, the State Commission rightly allowed the complaint taking the averments made in the complaint to be correct. Dismissed. ......................J ASHOK BHAN PRESIDENT

Advocate List
Bench
  • MR. ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
Eq Citations
  • LQ/NCDRC/2013/2420
Head Note

A. Consumer Protection — Ex parte proceedings — Unrebutted and uncontroverted averments in complaint — State Commission taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct, which remained unrebutted and uncontroverted, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.10,46,080/- as against the claim of Rs.33,00,080/- — In the absence of any denial, the State Commission rightly allowed the complaint taking the averments made in the complaint to be correct — Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss. 13(1) and 14