DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………..
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara,President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 30th day of March 2016.
C.C.No.82 of 2014.
Prabhas Kumar Sahu, age-59 years son of late Shiw Prasad Sahu.
Resident of Raghunathpada, Titilagarh Town, P.O/P.S-Titilagarh
Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.M/S. Symphony Limited, SAUMYA Bakeri Circle,
Nawarangapura,Ahemedabad (Gujarat, Pin-380014).
2.M/s. ABLY INFO SOLUTIONS, Tikrapada,
Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri R.Rath & Associates.
Adv.for the O.P.No.1 - None.
Adv.for the O.P.No.2 - Sri A.K.Mishra & Associates.
Date of filing of the case- 25.11.2014
Date of order -30.03.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
In brief, the complainant purchased two nos of symphony brand air cooler,Model Storm-100I against a consideration of Rs 34,000/- on dt.29.03.2014.
2. Post purchase of the product, in the month of April 2014 the cooler water pump did not function properly. On complain, the mechanics replaced the motor pump and circuit board. Latter in the month of June, the over flow pipe has been changed with rubber stopper further on succeeding month of September 2014 front panel of the both the coolers found to be in not working for which water is spewed from front. Such inconvenience arise out of non functioning of the cooler. The dealer usually deferred days in attending the within warranty maintenance calls. The complaint was made on dt. 3.10.2014and the mechanic called on dt.14.11.2014,such callousness approach has aggravated the problem that persists and also no rectified satisfactorily. Such insipid activity on the part of the O.Ps amounts to deficiency of service within the C.P. Act. Prayed direction be passed to replace the cooler /refund of the purchase price along with compensation and litigation cost. Relied on purchase receipt & warranty card and affidavit.
3. Pursuant to notice, the O.Ps appeared and filed the version on dt.16.12.2014, the O.P-1 admitted the purchase from M/s ABLY INFO SOLUTIONS and the product was not working due to improper installation, improper ventilation, power fluctuation and there may be problem in electrification at the place of air cooler installation so it is wrong to conclude that the air cooler is defective. This complaint with all knowledge has been filed to get unjustifiable benefit and to extract money illegally. The case is filed to harass the company and mar its reputation. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. O.P.2 made his version contending this forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case. Also contended the defects raised in the application are incorrect in all manner. The O.P.2 also submitted this answering O.P is the dealer of Symphony coolers and did not dispense service as required. The service centre is an enterprise named” Western Sales and Service” near Kalamandap Road, Bolangir being the authorized one. This O.P has intimated informing the complainant so when there is authorized service centre for this purpose, this O.P is no more liable to render service.
5. Further submitting it is false & imaginary that the complaint is made immediately it crop up but the O.P did not send his mechanic in time and delayed. More over when there is service center to look and on specific duty in rendering service, this O.P is no more liable. As there is no cause of action, the case is liable to be dismissed. Relied on job card and warranty card
6. Heard both the learned counsels and submissions. Perused the material on record.
7. Prima facie perusal of material on record speaks the petitioner is a bonafide consumer & no dispute persists on same. As to the question of jurisdiction it clear and vivid that O.Ps reside and works for gain so also surface of repeated defects on the purchased product amply speaks cause of action rightly ensue, so the case is maintainable and suffer no other technical point on such issue.
8. Further we see, the products belongs to a reputed Branch “Symphony” to which it charges more being with utmost brand value in comparison to others. No doubt defects have been developed in the post purchased months and it is admitted either the service center or the dealer has attend but rectification not yield to the satisfaction of the customer. The authorized service center job card No.1666 dt.22.6.2015 revealed “circuit changed” “Front panel not working” Circuit faulty and water servicing key dispense not functioned .This series of defects persists till 22.06.2015,so it is proved in absence of no other job card copy, the dealer or the service centre attended the call with utmost deligent prior to this service and the defects raised in immediate of purchase is true and believable.
9. The other contention raised the service center being in existence to render in specific, the dealer is not liable. Even if that it be, when there is sustained defect within the warranty period, then the warranty is to be discharged by the parties jointly and severally as because prolonged defect in a product leads replacement or refund, for such specific rendering of service, neither each O.P had individual potential nor can forward under individual obligation to discharge. In such a circumstance, it is just and proper the service centre can recommend to erase the chronic technical defects either with replacement or exchange with a new one.
10. Perusal of documents on record reveals the dealer is in denial mood and no more ready to resolve but to absolve his obligation under the sales contract. No record has been furnished or produced before this forum that services attended on such dates and time and the service centre repeatedly visited. The visiting log book has not been adduced nor the paid visit has been repeatedly placed with record. We are desperate that the job card defects is concur to the petitioner complain in the complaint, which is completely evasive on O.Ps end and not true rather we came to the conclusion that repeated defects have been surfaced in various interval, which has been concealed subsided, subjugated and willfully suppressed that the product being a top brand value passes under stringent checking process so the product entails zero defect in the public eye. Astoundingly O.P.2 absolves his responsibility that dealer is not responsible for matter of service and it contended, the authorized service center has not made a party but the job card placed before the forum relates to “Western Sales and Service” the authorized service provider. So it is more adducing authorized service center has been intimated but as they have inter se dispute same be sort out among themselves.
11. There is material on record to show that the warranty as given by the manufacturer, so how it deals with the dealer or service center, is not the concern of petitioner. In our opinion, the job card reflects the defects leading to change of circuit board and water leakage etc although contrary to same no record or investigation has produced that petitioner has not ensured the manual guidelines and defects generated due to electrical faults etc so the submission of the O.P has no leg to stand repeated surface of defect and malfunction held to be inherent manufactured defect. No record also has been placed the service tendered under interim relief allowed in rectification is also found not sustained one. Non removal or un-sustained rectification in a product as such held to be as jointly and severally liability.
12. Our same view is fortified under the following decision that we made reliance.
(i)Manufacturer cannot wash off its hands after selling defective vehicle- Sunil Kumar Vs Tata Motors Ltd and others- 2011(3) CPR-73.
(ii)It is duty of manufacturer/dealer to repair defects in a product during warranty period within a. reasonable time -Krishna Kumar Sahu Vs. Manager, Jai Shri Electronics & others- 2010(1) CPR 149.
13. It all shows that the product has now become irreparable. All the defects surfaced during the period of warranty and it was the duty of the O.Ps to cure such defects within a reasonable time which is non deligently attempted with. So considering all the above noted facts, we are of view that the petitioner herein is entitled for refund of the price or replacement with new one along with compensation for deficiency of service. Thus it is ordered:-
ORDER.
The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioner a refund sum of Rs 17,000/-(Rupees seventeen thousand) only, along with Rs 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony and litigation cost incurred within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 9% P.A. will incurr from the date of application till realization and also the complainant will return the defective cooler to the O.Ps against the refund sum.
(II) In addition to the aforesaid order, the order passed on dt.18.05.2015, against no appeal has been preferred and not complied satisfactorily, so it is final. That give rise to a penalty of Rs 200/- per day and the accumulation comes to Rs 61,800/-( Rupees sixty one thousand eight hundred) only, to be paid to the petitioner within above time frame, non compliance will accrue on the above rate of interest from the date of order till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
