Orissa

Rayagada

CC/124/2017

Pramiod Kumar Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Doordarshan - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Rabindra Nayak

07 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

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

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

C.C.case  No.       124         / 2017.                                 Date.     7    .02. 2020

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                     President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

Sri Pramod Kumar Nayak, S/O of Raghunath  Nayak, AT:Main Road,     Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765 001,                                   …. Complainant.

.

Versus.

1. The Manager, Doordarsan Digital Shoppe, Besides Over bridge,StationRoad,Po/Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).        
2. The Manager, Godrej Industries Ltd., Pirosahanagar, Eastern Express, High way, Vikhoroli, Mumbai, Pin No. 400079, India.

… Opposite parties.

For the complainant: - Sri  Rabindra  Nayak,Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P  No. 1 .      :-    Set  Exparte..

For the O.P. No.2 :- Authorised  agent of  the O.P.

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non  refund of  price a sum of Rs.22,500/- towards defective Washing machine  found defecective  during the warranty  period  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being Noticed, the O.P No.  1  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version in spite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.  1.  Observing lapses of around 2(Two)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  exparte against the O.P No. 1. The action of the O.P No.1  are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P  No.  1 was  set exparte  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.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No. 2  put in their appearance and filed written version through their Assistant Manager in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No. 2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P. No. 2 . Hence the O.P No. 2   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned authorised agents  for the  O.Ps   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

There  is no dispute that   the  complainant had purchased  Godrej washing machine R.T. Eon-No700PED, unit sl. No. 1311140066 on Dt.23.4.2016  from the O.P. No.1 on  payment  of consideration a sum of Rs.22,500/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  warranty. (copies of the  Retail invoice No. 42752 Dt.23.04.2016    inter  alia    warranty  (copies of the  invoice  and warranty card   are in the file which is marked as Annexure-I & 2 ).

The main grievances of the complainant is that due to non  rectification of the defects in the   above  set perfectly  within warranty period     he wants  refund  of purchase price of the washing machine . Hence this C.C. case.

The O.Ps 1 &2  in their written version contended that the complainant has not followed proper procedure to lodge a complaint for  his service requirement, the allegation made  by him   in his petition that the O.Ps have failed to replace  or repair the above set,  without supported by any documentary evidence, hence  illegal and against the principle of natural justice.  Further the company is under obligation to provide after-sale-srevice to its products within  the warranty period and   for any  defect in the above set  in this case. The complainant should   avail  the required service  by proper procedure and not by adopting undesirable process.  The O.Ps  No. 2 prays the forum  direct the complainant to allow the O.Ps  for initiating necessary repair within the terms of warranty and after submission of report of repair by the O.Ps  pass  an order to close the present case proceeding without  any cost or compensation.

Admittedly the  purchase of the Washing machine   of Godrej  Company  by the complainant is not denied.  The O.Ps have given an undertaking that they are  ready to  give the free  service as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said  set.  The complainant submitted that  as  per the  warranty condition  he approached  from pillar to post but the complainant  not get any  fruitful  result  till  date from any of  the  O.Ps.

            It is well settled principle of law that  no consumer will make any such complaint if there is no such deficiency. Hence the action of the O.Ps for not giving the required service  to the complainant is a deficiency in service  on the part of the O.Ps.

Further it is observed that the complainant is deprived of enjoyment of the above set for such a long time and caused mental torture and harassment to the complainant.  Further more the  above set    is highly essential  for the  complainant. 

             Now we have to see whether there was any negligence on the part of the O.Ps in treating the complainant as alleged?   We perused  the papers filed by the complainant for refund  the   price of   washing machine   set from the very beginning.   Inspite  of  services  given by the O.Ps the defects of the  above set of the complainant   persists  and  could not be rectified   by the service centre of the O.Ps.  We hold at this stage if the above set  required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it is defective. If a defective set is supplied  a consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new set and also the consumer concerned  is entitled and has a right to claim compensation and cost to  meet his mental agony, financial loss.

   In the instant case as it appears  that the above set which was purchased  by the complainant  had developed defects and the O.Ps engineers are   repeatedly attempts  to restore  its regular functioning  but  not made perfect running condition    of the above set till  date .

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

                                                                       

                                                            ORDER.

            In  resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps. 

           

The O.P No.  2 (Manufacturer)  is   directed to remove all  the defects  of the above  set including  replacement of defective parts if any free of cost enabling the complainant to use the same in perfect running condition like a new one  if the complainant  approached  the O.Ps  to rectify the defect of his   set  and shall provide all sort of after sale service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the  warranty of the afore said   set  with  extended further 6(six) months fresh warranty.  Parties are left  to bear their own cost.

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

 

 

            The O.Ps  are  ordered to comply the above direction within 45 from the date of receipt of this order.     Service the copies of the order to the parties.

 

Dictated  and  corrected  by  me.

Pronounced on this              7 ^th.     Day    of      February,   2020.

 

 

                Member                                                 Member.                                                                President