ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President.—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 34 of 2017, styled as Sh. Jai Krishan Uniyal Vs. M/s Sahni Electricals and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that on dated 18.02.2016, respondent Nos.1/complainant had purchased a Luminous inverter from respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 for sum of Rs.15,200/-. The said inverter was manufactured by the appellant / opposite party No. 2. After few months, technical fault occurred in the inverter, which was detected for the first time on 07.11.2016. The complainant lodged a complaint with respondent No. 2, but no attention was paid by it. After few days, the complainant made a call to respondent No. 2, but the same was ignored. The appellant - manufacturing company was also informed, but in vain. The complainant then lodged a complaint, whereupon Sh. Surendra Sharma, Technician came to the house of the complainant and checked the inverter and temporarily repaired the same, but after few days, the electricity supply failed. A complaint to this effect was lodged with respondent No. 2 on 03.12.2016, who assured the complainant to rectify the defect, but no Technician was sent to examine and rectify the defect. Therefore, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission, praying for the reliefs set forth in para No. 16 (prayer clause) of the consumer complaint.

3. Respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 filed written statement before the District Commission, stating that it is the dealer / seller of the subject inverter. The complainant had purchased the inverter after being fully satisfied. The complainant made a complaint on dated 09.11.2016 regarding defect in the inverter and the respondent No. 2 without any delay, contacted the manufacturing company for doing needful in the matter and a toll free number was also provided to the complainant and the complainant had a talk with the Service Head of the company. It was further stated that if there is any manufacturing defect in the inverter, the manufacturing company is solely responsible for the same and the respondent No. 2 has unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the consumer complaint.

4. The appellant and respondent No. 3 / opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 also filed written statement before the District Commission, stating that upon receiving complaint, their representative had visited the premises of the complainant on 28.11.2016 and found inverter to be OK. Actually, the fault of non-supply of electricity was due to wiring problem, therefore, supply of electricity was not proper. Their representative had again visited the premises of the complainant on dated 04.01.2017 and found that there was a backup problem in battery and the inverter was OK and the complainant was advised to handover the battery for its checking at service centre. After checking at service centre, the battery was found OK. The consumer complaint has been filed without any basis, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. The District Commission, after hearing respondent No. 1 / complainant and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint per impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2019, thereby directing the appellant & respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / opposite parties, jointly and severally, to pay an amount of Rs.15,200/- to respondent No. 1 / complainant towards cost of the inverter together with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days’, failing which the complainant was further held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from