Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/33/2022

Jaya Narayan Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Symphony Limited Symphony House, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Rajesh Kumar & associates

05 Dec 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 33/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Jaya Narayan Panda

S/O- Padmanabha Panda,

R/O-R-3, Jagannath Colony,

Po-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur.                                                                      ……..Complainant

Versus

1. Symphony Limited Symphony House,

FP12-TP50, Bodakdev, Off SG Highway,

Ahmedabad, 380059, Gujrat.

2. Radiant Enterprises, At-Dhuchurapara Chowk,

G.M. College Road, Po/Dist-Sambalpur.

3. Symphony Service Centre, Mahanadi Refrigeration,

Near Ashapali School, Opposite Womens Police Station,

PO/Dist-Sambalpur.                                                      …...Opp.Parties

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. R.Kumar, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.No. 1 & 3      :-        Authorised Representative
3. For the O.P. No.2                        :-         Exparte

 

Date of Filing:10.05.2022, Date of Hearing :01.11.2022, Date of Judgement : 05.12.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased a symphony Air Cooler bearing Model No. Sumo 115 XL on dtd. 01/05/2022 from the OP No. 2, the dealer at Sambalpur amounting to Rs. 16,200/- including G.S.T for his personal use. From the date of purchase, the cooler did not work as per the expectation of the Complainant and the problem became a nightmare as it was not sort out by the technician of the OP No. 3. After unwrapping the packet, the Complainant found the defects as the motor did not pump the water up to the tray and therefore the cooler did not gave out cool air instead it just acted as a fan. The Complainant immediately informed the OP No. 2 about the problem, but the OP No. 2 instead of solving the matter, pushed the responsibility on the OP No. 3. Thereafter the Complainant informed the OP No. 3 about the same and he promised him to attend his complain as soon as possible, but attended the Complainant at about 7 p.m. in the evening. Even after spending one hour in solving the problem, the defect was not sort out and the technician left the house of the Complainant with a word of promise that he will replace the water tray the next day. On 02/05/2022 the Complainant waited the whole day for the technician, but the technician again came at about 7 p.m. in the evening. On dtd. 3/5/2022, the Complainant waited the whole day but the technician again attended him at the evening in empty hand and again left him without sorting out the problem. Being fed up with the poor service, from the very first day, the Complainant asked the OP No. 2 for the return of the Cooler, but the OP No. 2 gave in denial that goods once sold will not be returned in any case, as such the Complainant had to bear a heavy loss for no fault of his own. So this is a simply case of deficiency in service and selling of defective goods in order to make profit out of the hard earned income of the people in Complainant.
2. The Written Statement of the OP No. 1 & 3 is that the Complainant had purchased Air Cooler of OP No. 1. The Complainant had informed the OP No. 3 directly about the issue in Air Cooler and never registered his complaint on designated call center number of the OP No. 1. There is no manufacturing defect in Air Cooler and there is no deficiency in service. After receiving the complaint of the Complainant, authorized technician of the OP No. 1 attended the complaint on the same day and tried to resolve the issue at its best. Sometimes while transportation some issue may happen in some part of Air Cooler despite of best efforts and packaging. But the issue was never reported by the Complainant at the designated call center number of the OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1. The authorized technician of OP No. 3 noticed some tilt in water distribution tray due to which 100% water was not flowing over the cooling pads. After receiving the water distribution tray by authorized technician of Respondent No. 1, they have contacted the Complainant for replacement of the same, however to its utter shock and surprise the Complainant blatantly refused for any kind of such replacement although it was made only on the specific request of the Complainant. Authorized technician of Respondent/Op No. 1 has contacted the Complainant for satisfactory resolution of the complaint several times (like on 26.05.2022 and 18.06.2022) but each time he refused and consequently the issue remains unresolved and thereafter the Complainant lodged this malicious and baseless complaint. It is evident that issue of the Complainant is not due to any kind of manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No. 1 but it due to refusal of taking service of the Complainant and in such case this complaint is required to be dismissed at this stage only.

 

3. From the above it is found that the Air Cooler purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect from immediately after its purchase by the Complainant and the OPs not solved the problem after several trial technician and did not repaired properly within the warranty period.

Accordingly issues are settled.

103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the OPs?
2. Is there any deficiency in service of the OPs?
3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OPs?

Issue No. 1  Is the Complainant a consumer of the OPs?

The Complainant has purchased a symphony Air Cooler bearing Model No. Sumo 115 XL on dtd. 01/05/2022 from the OP No. 2, who is the dealer of OP No. 1 and the OP No. 3 is the authorized service Centre. So the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs.

          Issue No. 2    Is there any deficiency in service of the OPs?

The Air Cooler purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect from immediately after it’s purchase by the Complainant and the OPs are not solved the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period. It is the duty of the OP No. 1 and 3 to solve the problem as the OP No. 1 is the manufacturing company & the OP No. 3 is the authorized service centre. So they are jointly liable for deficiency in service. Whereas the OP NO. 2 is the authorized dealer. So he is not responsible for any manufacturing defect.

Issue No. 3  Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OPs?

From all the facts discussed, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition from the OP No. 1 & 3.

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on contest. The O.P No. 1 and 3 are directed to return the sale price of the Air Cooler of Rs. 16,200/- to the Complainant, Rs. 20,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the entire amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 5^th day of Dec, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.