DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                        C.C.NO. 22 OF 2021

Sri.  Nrusingha Behera

S/O:  Late A.M. Behera

AT/PO- Masterpada street, Phulbani

DIST- Kandhamal.                                            ……………………….. Complainant.

                                   Versus.

1. M/S Arjuna Senapati & Sons

       PO- Phulbani

       DIST- Kandhamal

       Odisha, PIN- 762001       

2. Corporate Head of IFB Industries Limited      

       2, Plot No.IND-5, Sector-1,

       East Kolkata, Kolkata,

       India- 700107                                                  ……………………….. OPP. Parties.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                          Sri Sudhakar Senapothi     - Member .

For the Complainant: Self

For O.P.1- Self

For O.P.2- None (Ex-parte)

Date of Argument:  21.06.2022

Date of Order:  30-06-2022

                                                          -2-

  JUDGEMENT

Mr. Sudhakar Senapothi, Member    

The complainant Sri. Nrusingha Behera has filed this case U/S 35  of C.P Act, 2019 alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not providing him proper after sales service and praying therein for a direction to the OPs to refund the cost of the washing machine with penal interest and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and suffering owing   to breach  of trust in providing adequate service and  a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards the cost of one maid  servant engaged for the purpose for washing his clothes.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the petitioner has purchased one washing machine from OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs.20, 000/- on dtd.18.01.2021. After eight months of running in the first part of October 2021, the machine stopped functioning. After the defect cropped   up in consultation with OP No.1 he consulted with the technical person and it was ascertained that the machine has gone out of order and it needs replacement of some parts. As there is no authorized service centre of IFB at Phulbani, he raised the complaint through toll free number to repair the machine as it was under warrantee. After certain days of the complaint one mechanic namely Mr.Rabi from Arpita electronics turned up and inspected the machine but failed to repair the machine as the required parts for repair were not available with him. He assured to make available the parts within a week. Even after a period of one and a half month there was no solution to the problem and after repeated appeal made to the customer care who assured to repair the machine by 25.11.2021 which was never made. Because of the callous attitude of the OPs, the petitioner, his wife, pregnant daughter and his grand children suffered a lot for which finding no other alternative, the petitioner approached this Commission for the reliefs and prayed for in the complaint petition.
2. After issue of notice the OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement whereas the OP No.2 preferred not to appear.
3. The Op No.1 in his written statement stated that he is the dealer and providing service is not his duty and he has sold the refrigerator of Samsung Make to the petitioner. The OP No.2 preferred not to appear or challenge the allegation raised against him.
4. During the course of hearing the complainant submitted another complaint petition supported by affidavit in which he has stated that the machine has been repaired by the company after receipt of notice from this Commission.  But he suspects  the longevity of the repair work as it has been done by using old and used materials. So the principal grievance has been redressed.
5. It is seen from the documents on record that the petitioner has frequently contacted the Op No.2 through its customer care and repeated Email has been sent to the company. It is the duty of the manufacturer to ensure that proper after sale service is made available to the customer promptly. In the instance case, even though the company has repaired the washing machine at a belated stage it is only after getting notice from this Commission. The complainant being a senior citizen suffered a lot and ron to this Commission at this old age to get his grievance redressed. It is a clean case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
6. The OP No.1 in a very careless manner has submitted his written statement wherein he has specifically pleaded that he has sold one refrigerator to the petitioner of Samsung Make. The Op No.1 is completely silent, as to what steps he has taken after receiving the complaint from the customer for redressal of his grievances. Being the dealer of the company he is getting some profit margin on the product when it is being sold. When the customer is purchasing his material, he is purchasing it from the shop of the dealer and it casts a duty on him to provide all kinds of assistance to the customer to get his grievance redressed. In our opinion the OP No.1 is also squarely responsible for deficiency in service.
7.  The OP No.1 & 2 being the seller and the manufacturer   of the product have failed to provide prompt after sale service to the complainant and are jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant.
8.  The machine in question remained defective for a long period and the complainant lost this period out of the total warranty period. So he is entitled to get extension of warranty for the extra period for which his machine remained idle for lack of service by the OPs.
9. As a case of deficiency in service and harassment is made out against the OPs, they are liable to compensate the petitioner for the harassment caused and the OP No.1 is specifically liable for  misleading the Commission by giving erratic information that he has sold one refrigerator of Samsung Make whereas he has sold the washing machine vide invoice NO.1958 dtd.18.01.2021 of IFB make and hence the order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed against the OP No.1 on contest and ex-parte against OP No.2. Both the OPs are made jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20, 000/- to the petitioner for compensation towards deficiency in service and harassment, the OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation. The OP No.1 is imposed with cost of Rs.5000/- for attempting to mislead the Commission payable to State consumer welfare Fund. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.     

                           I Agree

                       PRESIDENT                                                                 MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 30th day of June 2022 in the presence of the parties.

           PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER