Orissa

Cuttak

CC/14/2022

Dr Sarjit Pattanaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Glen Application - Opp.Party(s)

I Mohanty & associates

24 May 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.14/2022

 

          Dr. Sanjit Patnaik,

          S/O:Late Laxman Patnaik,

          R/o:Plot No.1458,Sector-6,

          CDA,Cuttack-753014,

           Odisha.                                                                                  ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,

I-34, DLF Industrial Area,

               Phase-1,Faroidabad-121003

​             Haryana

       2.    Balaji Distributors,

Bhagat Singh Complex,

Buxi Bazar,Cuttack-753001,

        Odisha.                                                                     ...Opp.Parties

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    27.01.2022

Date of Order:  24.05.2023

 

For the complainant      :                Mr. Ishwar Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps                    :                Mr. T.R.Nayak,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                     
                                                  

                   Case of the complainant as made out bereft unnecessary details in short is that on 19.3.2021 he had purchased a Kitchen chimney from O.P no.2 for a consideration of Rs.17,000/-.  But on 25.4.21 the complainant found cracks developing in the said chimney, which according to him, is a manufacturing defect.  Though he had approached the O.Ps for replacement of the same on several occasions, the O.Ps have not listened to him for which he had also issued a legal notice to them on 28.7.21.  On 6.8.21 a technician of O.P no.1 had visited the kitchen of the complainant and had replaced the cracked side plates of the said chimney but again on 8.8.21 i.e. two days after such replacement those replaced side plates had cracked.  The complainant had sent photographs and mails to the O.P no.1 in this connection and ultimately when he was disgusted and became frustrated after running several times and persuading the matter with the O.Ps, he had to file this case before this Commission seeking refund of the cost of the chimney to the extent of Rs.17,000/- from the O.Ps together with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment.  He has also prayed for litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- from the O.Ps and for any other order as fit and proper.

   To substantiate his case, the complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.                The O.Ps however have contested this case together and have filed their written version wherein they have admitted about the purchase of the Chimney bearing Model No.GL6014 SSBF-90 from O.P no.2 vide Invoice no.BDK/GST-3782 dated 19.3.2021 for a price of Rs.17,000/- by the complainant.  On 6.8.21 the technician of their service centre had visited the spot and had changed the plastic angular of the chimney.  According to them, the defect was due to extra stress as because installation was not aligned so the load was on one side more.    Again, two to three days after receiving complaint from the customer they had appointed technician to recheck the issue but the same could not be done by their technician as because the house was under lock.   It is thus prayed by the O.Ps to allow their technician for rechecking the kitchen chimney of the complainant. 

3.            Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3, 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 and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

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

The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit which when perused, it is noticed that the same is only reiteration of the complaint petition as filed by him.

Issue no.ii.

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

After going through the complaint petition, written version and the copies of documents as available in this case, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased a kitchen chimney of model no.BDK/GST-3782 for a price of Rs.17,000/- on 19.3.2021 from the O.P no.2.  It is also not in dispute that there were crack developed subsequently in the side plates of the said kitchen chimney which were replaced by the technician of the O.Ps but immediately after such replacement those replaced side plates cracked again.  In this context, the complainant submits that inspite of his repeated persuasions, the O.Ps had turned a deaf ear to his grievances while the O.Ps have taken the plea that their technician could not recheck the kitchen chimney as because the house of the complainant was locked.   Be that as it may, one thing is admitted that there was defect developed in the kitchen chimney as purchased by the complainant and even if some parts were replaced, the defects developed immediately thereafter in the said kitchen chimney.  This grievance of the complainant was not promptly attended by the O.Ps.  If at all the house of the complainant was under lock, it is not understood as to what had restrained the O.Ps for not sending any message to that effect through mail to the complainant asking him to be present for such recheck by their technician.  As it appears from the copies of documents filed by the complainant that he had   persuaded repeatedly for rectification of his defective kitchen chimney purchased by him from the O.Ps but the O.Ps appear to be callous towards the grievance of the complainant.  It is for this, we are of a considerate view that infact there was clear-cut deficiency in service by the O.Ps who were indifferent in their attitude towards the grievance of the complainant and it also indicates the practice of unfair trade by them.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable and he is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                                   ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps  who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case,  The said O.Ps are thus directed to replace the  kitchen chimney of the complainant with a defect-free one of same model and price  or in the alternative, to pay the cost of the said kitchen chimney i.e., Rs.17,000/- to the complainant and to pay further a sum of  Rs.50,000/- towards  compensation to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment and also to pay  a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.   This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

 

 

 

                                                                                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                   Member