Orissa

Rayagada

CC/33/2020

Smt. K.Bharathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Doordarshan Digital shoppe - Opp.Party(s)

Sri D. Davi Prasad

28 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

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

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

C.C.case  No.       33         / 2020.                                    Date.    28     .10. 2020

P R E S E N T .

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                                        President-In-Charge.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Smt. K.Bharati, W/O: K.Vamsi Kireeti, AT: Sri residence, Plot No. 207, 2^nd. Floor, Besides Udaya Plaza ,      Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765 001.                                                                                                        …. Complainant.

.

Versus.

1. The Manager, Doordarsan Digital Shoppe,  Po/Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).
2. The Manager,   Whirlpool of India Ltd., Office No. 2,ist. Floor, Block No.1 & 2, BMC Bhavani Commercial Enclave, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007.
3. Sri Vipul Sabharwal, Vice President, Marketing and sales, Whirlpool of India Ltd., Plot No.A-4, MIDC, Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirur, Maharastra- 419204 (India).

… Opposite parties.

For the complainant: - Sri D.Ravi Prasad, Rayagada

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

For the  O.P. No.2  &  3 :-Sri Hari Ram Kedia and Sri Anil Kumar Kedia, Advocates , Cuttack.

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non  replacement of  defective   Whirlpool Washing machine  which  was  found defective 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  03 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 1(One)year  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   is 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.

The O.P. No.2 & 3 appeared through their learned counsel  and filed   written  version refuting the allegation made against them. The O.P No.2  taking one and other 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.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

There  is no dispute that   the  complainant has purchased  Whirlpool  washing machine   having  its model No.31255 Wm 360, Bloom wash Ultra-7.5   on Dt. 30.5.2018   from the O.P. No.1  bearing    invoice  No.3212 on Dt.30.05.2018  on  payment  of  consideration  a sum of Rs.27,500/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  2 + 8 year warranty period. (copies  of the  bill   and warranty Registration card  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I  & 2).

After  using  some  months i.e with in the warranty period  the complainant  has  shown  defective in the above set and the said   machine was not working properly i.e.  while running burning smell was  coming  from the machine. Hence   the complainant  approached the  service centre  situated at Rayagada(Odisha)  for its rectification.  But the   Service centre has not rectified the  same within the warranty period.

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

The O.P. No. 2 & 3  in their written version contended and  vehemently argued that the present complaint is not maintainable  before the forum. We are of the opinion that the case  is relating to defective goods  which is covered under section 2(i)(f) of the C.P. Act. The C.P. Act  which provides that  “Defective means any fault, in imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity are standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force”.   After amendment made by  the C.P. Act   of 2002 wherein it  is made clear that when a complainant  is using the product of the O.P.No.2 & 3    purchased from the  O.P.No.1   is also coming within the definition of consumer and the service provided  or attached to the said  goods in the shape of warranty or guarantee is also available to the users.

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  set   and   to  remove   the defects  of   the above set  with fresh warrantee .

It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State  Commission , Chandigarh where in  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  set, the dealer was under an obligation to refer the matter  to the manufacturer for necessary  relief, which  in the  instant case was  not  done”.

The O.P. No.2 & 3  in their written version contended that  the complainant has not approached any of   the  authorized service centre of the O.P. No. 2  & 3.  Further the complainant has not provided any evidence  regarding manufacturing defects in the product.  It is therefore   clearly established that the complainant has provided false information in the complaint to  mislead the  forum and to unnecessarily harass the  O.P. No.2 & 3 by filing this case. Again the O.P. No.2 & 3  contended that  the product  in dispute is still under warranty and the  complainant  can approach the  No.2  & 3 or any of   its authorized service centre  within the warranty period and submit the product in  connection with any  defects in the product.   The O.P. No.2  & 3  will duly  carry out necessary technical examination of the product for ascertaining defects in the product and inform the  complainant regarding any defects in  the  product and whether the same can be   repaired  under the warranty  terms and conditions applicable to the product. The  forum  may be directed to the complainant to approach the O.P. No.2 & 3  for any assistance  he may  require.

 

Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to  any goods.

                       

it is concluded  that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means  “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the  quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.  Since the date of purchase, the above set  found defective.  Inspite of  repeated  attempt  by the Engineers  of the above company to rectify  the same,  but the defects could not be rectified , which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, the O.Ps  are liable to replace  the above set.

 

During the  course of hearing the  learned counsel for the complainant has submitted  that  the complainant wants  replacement  of the  washing machine  up-to-date  model  and  the difference amount  of the above  product  will be payable  by the complainant  to the O.Ps.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

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

                                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on contest against the O.Ps.

                The O.P. No. 2  & 3  (Manufacturer)   are directed to replace the above defective Whirlpool  washing machine   having  its model No.31255 Wm 360, Bloom wash Ultra-7.5 with a new one up-to-date model which shall be free from any defect with fresh warranty. It is clarified that, if the new up-to-date model is above  Rs.27,,500/- the complainant will pay the differential price to the O.Ps after deducting the original price of Rs.27,500/- .Parties are  left to bear their  own costs.

                The O.P. No.1  is ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2  &  3 (Manufacturer)    for early compliance  of the above order.

                The entire directions shall be carried out with in  30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced in the open forum on   28th.day of    October, 2020.

                                               

MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT