Orissa

Rayagada

CC/72/2018

Smt. Sunita Rani Patnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Door Darshan Digital Shoppe - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.       72       / 2018.                                      Date.      7   .12. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                     President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

                                                           

Smt. Sunita  Rani  Patnaik,  W/o: Sri L.M.Patnaik,  Raniguda Farm, Po/Dist:Rayagada , 765 001  (Odisha).                                                                    .               …. Complainant.

 

Versus.

1.The Manager, Doordarsan Digital Shoppe, Rayagada.

2.The Manager, IFB Industries Ltd., Home Appliance Division,  L1,  Verna  Electronic  City, Verna, State:Goa – 403722  (India).

                                                                                                    … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps.      :-    Set  Exparte.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non  replacement of IFB washing  machine  during the warranty  period  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the O.Ps  neither   entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 1(One) years   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  expartee against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps.  were set expartee  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

          Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

                On the basis  of the documents/material   or  record, it is not in dispute that the IFB  Washing  machine  TL 65 RCG  6.5 KG  Aqua   was purchased  by the complainant  from the  O.P. No. 1  on  Dt.  9.11.2015     for a total consideration of  Rs. 19,500/- (copies   of the  Retail invoice. and warranty copies  is in the file  which are marked as Annexure-I, II).     It is also not in dispute that the above  said product  so purchased  carried  a warranty.

                The main grievance of the complainant  is that  the washing  machine purchased  by  him  was not working  well  for which  the said IFB   company has failed to rectify    the defects  although  the Engineers  have  visited  the house   of the  complainant  from time to time.   Hence this C.C. case. 

                 We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the above product in question was  found defective within warranty period  of  its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the O.Ps regarding the defect but the  O.Ps  failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the product  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective product  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case,  as it is appears that the above product  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects just  after months of its purchase and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the above product with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the product  and the defecates were not removed by the O.Ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to  any goods.

                       

it is concluded  that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means  “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the  quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.  Since the date of purchase, the above set  found defective.  Inspite of  repeated  attempt  by the Engineers  of the above company to rectify  the same,   but the defects could not be rectified , which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, the O.Ps  are liable to replace  the above set and also liable to pay  compensation  and cost.

 

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed. 

                                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on contest against the O.Ps.

                The O.P. No. 2 (Manufacturer)   is directed to replace the above defective IFB washing machine TL RCG 6.5 Kg.   Aqua with a new one up-to-date model which shall be free from any defect with fresh warranty. It is clarified that, if the new up-to-date model is above  Rs.19,500/- the complainant will pay the differential price to the O.Ps after deducting the original price of Rs.19,500/-. Parties are  left to bear their  own costs.

                The O.P. No.1  is ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2  (Manufacturer)    for early compliance  of the above order.

                 The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.   Pronounced in the open forum on     7th.      day of    December, 2019.

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT