Prodyuminilata Padihary filed a consumer case on 27 Feb 2020 against Jagat Janani Home Appliances in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/50/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Jul 2020.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA, 765 001
C.C. Case No. 50 / 2019. Date. 20 .02 . 2020.
P R E S E N T .
Dr.Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President
Sri Gadadhara Sahu, Member.
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra,. Member
Smt. Padminilata Padihari, W/O: Gokul Charan Das, Vill:Tumbiguda, Near Laxmiganesh Rice Mill Colony, Po/Dist: Rayagada (Odisha)..
Cell No. 8984393111, 8984402093 …Complainant.
Versus.
1.The Manager/Proprietor, Jagat Janani Home appliances,Goutam Nagar,2nd. Lane, Po/Dist: Rayagada.
2.The Manager, Voltas Home Appliance Pvt. Ltd., Arihant Plaza, Second floor, Saheed Nagar, In front of Omfed office,Bhubaneswar.
… Opposite parties.
For the Complainant:- Self.
For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.
JUDGEMENT
The factual matrix of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non removing the defects during warranty period towards Voltas Refrigerator for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts are summarised here under.
That the complainant had purchased Voltas Refrigerator Frost free RFF293 B from the O.P. No. 1 by paying cash payment of Rs.30,500.00 having warranty bearing invoice No. 412 Dt.7.1.2019. The above set became defunct after three months with a following defects i.e. leakage of water problem from the set and not cooling. So the complainant had handed over the same to the O.P. No.1 for repair 3 times in turn the O.P. No.1 had sent the same to the complainant as it is. But till date the O.Ps have not rectified the defects of the above set. On asking the O.Ps were taking one or other plea. Hence this case before the forum for redressal of her grievance and to direct the O.Ps to refund purchase price and further direct the OPs to pay compensation and also cost of litigation to the complainant & such other relief as the forum deems fit and proper for the interest of justice.
On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their written version inspite of more than 5 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 exparte 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 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.
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.
From the records it reveals that, the complainant has purchased Voltas Refrigerator Frost free RFF293 B from the O.P. No.1 by paying cash payment of Rs.30,500.00 having warranty bearing invoice No. 412 Dt. 7.1.2019 (copies of the tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately within the warranty period the above set found defective and not functioning properly. The complainant complained the OPs for rectification of the above set. Inspite of rectification the same problem exists. Hence this C.C. case.
It is admitted position of law that when a goods sold by the manufacturer has under gone servicing and even such servicing the same defects persist it is deemed to be a manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant is entitled to thoroughly check up of the above set and to remove the defects of the above set and to give with fresh warrantee .
It is held and reported in CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State Commission , Chandigarh observed the dealer is the person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality of goods sold and in case the consumer had problem with the above set, the dealer was under an obligation to refer the matter to the manufacturer for necessary relief, which in the instant case was done.
Coming to the merits of the case the complainant had purchased the above set from the O.Ps on payment of consideration an amount of Rs. 30,500.00 on Dt. 7 1..2019(copies of the retail invoice marked as Annexure-I ). On perusal of the record we observed the complainant after using some months for rectification of defects had intimated to the O.Ps but could not be rectified by the O.Ps till date inspite of filing of C.C. case before the forum.
On perusal of the record we observed that the complainant made several complaints with the O.Ps pointing out the defects which goes on to show that right from the very beginning the above set was not performing well and continued repeatedly to develop defects resulting in non-performance which was intimated by the complainant. Further we observed that on repeated complaints made by the complainant to the O.Ps neither the defects have been removed nor replaced with a new set. We hold at this stage if the above set required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it has a manufacturing defect. If a defective set is supplied a consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the set or to replaced with a new set and also the consumer concerned is entitled and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the above set which was purchased by the complainant which had developed defects 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 set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the above set. In this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the set and deprived of using the above set for such a long time and the defects were not removed by the O.Ps who could know the defects from time to time from the complainant. In the instant case the O.Ps are liable.
On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OPs.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
O R D E R
In resultant the complaint petition stands allowed on exparte against the O.Ps.
The O.P No..2 (Manufacturer) directed to return back the defective product from the complainant by paying the price of the above set a sum of Rs. 30,500/- besides to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
The O.Ps 1 is directed to refer the matter to the O.P No. 2 for early compliance of the above order and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P. No. 2 to provide satisfying service for which she is entitled.
The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.
Serve the copies of the order to the parties as per rule free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Pronounced in the open forum on 20th. day of February, 2020.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.