Orissa

Cuttak

CC/23/2020

Plaban Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Havells India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P Sinha & associates

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

 

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

                                                                C.C.No.23/2020

Plaban Patra,

S/O:Duryodhan Patra,

At:Shreeram Nagar,Near Ruchi Company,

PO/P.S:Madhupatna,CTC-753010.                                  ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.          Havell’s India Ltd., Divn Lloyd ware House,

4^th Floor,M/s. Hotel Rashmi Plaza,

Jayadev Vihar,Unit-16,Maitri Vihar,

         Chandrasekharpur,Bhubaneswar-751023,

         Dist:Khurda.

 

2.          Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd.,

159,Okhla, Industrial Estate,Phase-III,

New Delhi-110020.

 

3.         Durgashree Electronics,

Link Road,Arunodaya Market,

               Cuttack—753012.                                                                ....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    05.02.2020

Date of Order:  28.07.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. Prasanjit Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1 & 2:           Mr. M.R.Mahalik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3 :                              None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                         

            Case of the complainant in nutshell is that he had purchased a Lloyd washing machine from O.P No.3 on 10.1.2016 vide cash memo bill no.2015/16/459, model No. LWMF70 sl.no.20150600124 for a consideration of Rs.22,000/-.  The complainant has urged that there was manufacturing defect in the said washing machine for which he had repeatedly approached O.P No.3 and had handed over the washing machine to him.  After rectifying the defect, O.P No.3 had assured the complainant that the washing machine will have no such defect in future but some days thereafter, to the dismay of the complainant there was recurrence of such defect for which the complainant alleged about the deficiency in service of the O.Ps which had caused harassment and mental agony to him.  The complainant had given a representation to O.P No.3 on 13.8.19 but the O.Ps have not responded to his request.  The washing machine of the complainant is not functioning properly for which he had approached them time and again and ultimately being further harassed he had sent a legal notice dt.24.9.19 through registered post to the O.Ps.  Having no other way out, when the O.Ps did not respond, the complainant has filed this case seeking cost of the washing machine to the tune of Rs.22,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum.  He has also claimed litigation fee from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.12,000/- and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment.  He has further claimed interest on the compensation amount @ 6% per annum. 

The complainant has filed copies of certain documents in order to prove his case. 

2.         On the other hand, out of the three O.Ps, O.P No.3 has not contested this case for which he has been set exparte vide order dt.8.4.2022.  However, O.Ps No.1 & 2 have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  According to the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 2, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties.  They have harped in their written version that the complainant though has taken the plea of manufacturing defect of the washing machine, he has not adduced any evidence or opinion of any expert to that effect.  In this score, they have relied upon a decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vrs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand 3(2009) CPJ 229(NC) wherein it is held that “Manufacturing defect as per P.Ramanatha Aiyars Advanced Law Lexicon, 3RD Edition, Volume 3, 2005, defines to mean as:- An unintended aspect of finished product due to error or omission in assembly or manufacture, that causes injury.  They have also relied upon another decision in the case of BusinessDictionary.com which defines it to mean:-Frailty or shortcoming in a product resulting from a departure from its design specification during production.EID Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Baby Benjamin Thushara I(1992) CCPJ 279(NC) wherein it is held that in a complaint when it is alleged that the article in question suffers from manufacturing defect, it is necessary to send the said article for laboratory examination. As such, they have prayed to dismiss the case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments from either sides as available in the complaint petition and that in the written version, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to adjudicate the present case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Issue No.2.

            Issue no.2 being the pertinent issue in this case is taken up first for consideration.

            While going through the evidence as available in the case record, it is noticed that there is no dispute that the complainant had purchased the washing machine on 10.1.16 for a consideration of Rs.22,000/-.  The defect as noticed in the said washing machine is also not in dispute.  It is the contention of the complainant that the said washing machine could not be properly repaired by the O.Ps though it was well within the warranty period of purchase.  The contesting O.Ps are silent as regards to the repair of the said washing machine but they have harped upon the contention of the complainant who had relied as regards to the manufacturing defect of the said washing machine.  In this score they had relied upon the judgments which they have mentioned in their written version. In this score, they have relied upon a decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vrs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand 3(2009) CPJ 229(NC) wherein it is held that “Manufacturing defect as per P.Ramanatha Aiyars Advanced Law Lexicon, 3RD Edition, Volume 3, 2005, which defines to mean as:- An unintended aspect of finished product due to error or omission in assembly or manufacture, that causes injury.  They have also relied upon another decision in the case of BusinessDictionary.com which defines it to mean:-Frailty or shortcoming in a product resulting from a departure from its design specification during production.EID Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Baby Benjamin Thushara I(1992) CCPJ 279(NC) wherein it is held that in a complaint when it is alleged that the article in question suffers from manufacturing defect, it is necessary to send the said article for laboratory examination.  This Commission also agrees to the said submission of the O.Ps that the complainant while taking the plea of manufacturing defect should have proved the same through the opinion of one expert.  By not doing so, the complainant’s stand that his purchased washing machine had manufacturing defect cannot be said to have been proved substantially.  Be that as it may, when the O.Ps are silent as regards to the repair of the defects in the washing machine within the warranty period as pointed out by the complainant and there is no evidence that if such defect was repaired promptly by them, this Commission unhesitatingly concludes that in fact there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Accordingly, this issue is answered against the O.Ps.

Issue No.1.

When the purchased washing machine of the complainant was found to be defective and the same could not be repaired time and again, the complainant was justified in filing this cased and the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable.

Issue No.3.

            Of course, the complainant has failed to establish that his purchased washing machine had certain manufacturing defects but admittedly when such defects persisted in his purchased washing machine; it is the duty of the O.Ps to repair the same if the defects are within the warranty period of the purchase.  Accordingly this Commission holds that the complainant is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps 1 & 2 and exparte against O.P No.3.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to repair the defective washing machine of the complainant free of cost within a month of getting this order and to bear the litigations expenses alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment as claimed by him within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order by paying those amounts to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 28^th day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member