Orissa

Cuttak

CC/212/2022

Binay Kumar Shukla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India Brigade Gateway - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.212/2022

          Binay Kumar Shukla,

          S/O:LateUdayanath Shukla,

          At:Fakirpur(Udayabhaban),

          P.O:Jagatpur,Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.                               ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.                        

 

1.       AMAZON INDIA Brigade Gateway,8^th Floor,

26/1,Dr. Rajkumar Road Malleshwaram(W) Bangalore-560055,

                  Karnataka.

 

2.       Service Incharge,Eureka Forbes Servicing Centre,

Plot No.1464, 2^ndFloor(Behind Sabarmati Hospital),

                  At-Mahanadivihar,Po: Nayabazar,

                 Dist-Cuttack-753004,Odisha

3.      Regional Head,Eureka Forbes,

7,Chakraberia Road(South),Kolkata-700025.

 

4.      Chief Manager,Eureka Forbes Ltd.,

B-1/B-2 701,7^th Floor,

Marathon Innova Marathan Next Gen,

Off Ganapatrao,Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel,Mumbai-400013.                                                ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    12.10.2022

Date of Order:  02.06.2023

 

For the complainant:            Self.

For the O.P no.1.                :None.

For the O.Ps no.2 to 4:         Mr. A,K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased one Eureka Forbes Trendy Zip Vacuum Cleaner from O.P no.1 online vide order no.171-8672254-7368353 dt.19.10.21 having one year warranty thereon.  The complainant while using the said Vacuum cleaner had to book complaint bearing no.2024292815 on 19.1.2022 for which O.P no.2 had sent a technician to him on 26.1.2022.  The technician after examining the machine had advised the complainant for replacement of the motor on availability of the stock but to the dismay of the complainant, from 26.1.22 upto 16.5.22 no person from the side of O.Ps had turned up for changing the motor or replacing the Vacuum cleaner.  It is for this the complainant had to lodge a second complain on 16.5.22 vide request no.9805770177.  On 18.7.22, O.P no.2 had sent a mechanic for the second time with a new motor but unfortunately the said new motor did not fix into the space available in the machine and therefore the technician assured the complainant to get the same motor from the regional office of O.P no.3.  Thereafter eight months elapsed but the complainant had to run from pillar to post on several occasions without getting any result.  Ultimately, the complainant had to file this case against all the O.Ps seeking direction for replacement of the Vacuum cleaner and has claimedcompensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards his mental agony and loss together with he cost of his litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- from the O.Ps.

   The complainant alongwith with his complain petition has filed copies of several documents in order to establish his case.

2.            Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to  contest, O.P no.1 has been set exparte vide order dt.5.1.2023.  However, all the other O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version conjointly.  According to their written version, the case of the complainant is not maintainable, the allegations as made by the complainant are all false, frivolous and vexatious.  According to them, after receiving the complaint of the complainant, their service people had immediately attended the defective machine on 26.1.22 who found the machine was not functioning due to some defect in the motor for which the complainant was requested to wait for sometime in order to enable them to exchange the motor as because the new motor was not in stock at the Odisha Warehouse.  On 18.7.22 after obtaining the new motor from Bangalore Warehouse, the service people had gone to replace the defective motor in the Vacuum cleaner of the complainant but the complainant had not allowed them to do so, rather had demanded a new machine in exchange of the old one.  The allegation as made by the complainant that the new motor did not fix the space is concocted.  As such, the O.Ps have no ulterior motive to harass the complainant, rather they are ready to replace the defective motor, free of cost but were disallowed to do so by the complainant.  Accordingly, they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

Together with their written version, the O.Ps have filed copies of certain documents in order to establish their stand.

3.      Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

              i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

              ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  ?

              iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

              The complainant has filed his written version which when perused was found to be the reiteration of the averments as made by him in his complain petition.

              The O.Ps have also filed evidence affidavit through one Mr. Mohammad Kashif and another Binay Kumar Sukla but while going through those contentions of the said two evidence affidavits as filed from the side of the O.Ps, it is noticed that those were also repetition of the contents of the written version as filed by the O.Ps here in this case.

Issue no.ii.

                Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration here.

                On careful scrutinization of all the available copies of documents from either sides together with the contents of the complaint petition and that of the written version, it is noticed that admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Vacuum cleaner of Eureka Forbes which had warranty of one year effective from 18.10.201.  It is also admitted fact that the said Vacuum cleaner of the complainant had certain defects in the motor for which it was not functioning and the complainant had lodged complaint for the same.  The O.Ps also admit about the non-availability of the said motor of the said Vacuum cleaner at the Warehouse of Odisha for which they had procured the same from the Bangalore warehouse and their service people had approached the complainant on 18.7.22 for replacing the same.  In this context, the plea of the complainant is that the said motor was not fixing to the available space in the said machine.  But the O.Ps have pleaded that the complainant wanted a new Vacuum cleaner in replacement of the old one and thereby he had disallowed the service people from replacing the defective motor in his purchased Vacuum cleaner.  In this context, while probing into all the copies of documents as available here in this case, if at all the service people of the O.Ps were disallowed by the complainant from replacing the defective motor of the Vacuum cleaner of the complainant by substituting a new one, and the service people of the O.Ps had to return without doing so, no document has been filed by the O.Ps in order to show that infact the complainant was claiming for a new machine and they had replied to the complainant in that context that they can only replace the defective motor of the Vacuum cleaner,  purchased by the complainant.  There is absolutely no correspondence to that effect filed here in this case from the side of the O.Ps in order to establish such claim of them and to justify their plea.  Thus, when it is admitted that the purchased Vacuum cleaner was not functioning since because there was some problem in the motor which the O.Ps could not promptly replace since because of  non-availability of the motor at the Warehouse of Odisha which they  could procure from the Bangalore Warehouse for which they had sent their service people to the house of the complainant on 18.7.22.This goes to show that after receiving the complaint of the complainant bearing no.2024292815 on 19.1.22 after a span of seven months, the O.Ps could get a new motor and wanted to replace the same in the purchased Vacuum cleaner of the complainant on 18.7.22.  This is an admitted fact from the side of the O.Ps which tilts our eye brows and forces us to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that infact there is gross deficiency in service to which the O.Ps had tried their best to camaflouge with a plea that the complainant had disallowed their service people asking for a new Vacuum cleaner.  This effort of the O.Ps in order to wriggle out from the puddle of their responsibility has utterly failed here in this case and accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                       ORDER

             Case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps no.2 to 4 and exparte against the O.P no.1.  The O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable here in this case are directed to replace the defective motor with a new one in the Vacuum cleaner of the complainant or  to replace the Vacuum cleaner with a new one of same price  and same model or in the alternative to pay the cost of the Vacuum cleaner  with 12% interest thereon from the date of purchase i.e. from 19.10.2021 till the amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his mental atony and harassment and also to bear the  cost of his litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.This order is to be carried within a period of 30 days from the date of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 2^nd day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                       President

  

 

                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                Member