Orissa

Rayagada

CC/114/2016

Sri Riskiesh Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jain Enterproses, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 114/ 2016.                                        Date.   17    .    05    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

 

Sri Rishikesh Behera,  S/O: Narasingha  Behera,  At/Po: Bissamcuttack,   Po/ Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                            …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Manager, M/S. Jain Enterprises, Po/Dist: Rayagada, (Odisha).

2.The  Manager, M/S.  Refrigeration, Kapilas Lane, Po/Dist: Rayagada, (Odisha).

3.The Manager,   M/S. Voltas Ltd., Voltas House, B-Block, Chinchipokli, Mumbai- 400  033.

                                                                             Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps:- Sri  Prasanta Kumar Tripathy, Advocate, 9937375230.

JUDGMENT

       The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non refund of  Voltas  VISI Cooler – 500 Ltr  price for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

 

.         On being noticed the O.Ps   appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps taking one and another 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.Ps  . Hence the O.Ps    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a  Voltas   VISI Cooler – 500 Ltr    from the O.P.  No.1  by paying a sum of Rs. 32,000/-   on Dt. 28.2.2015  with  one year warranty  ( Copies of the Warranty card  is  in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).

The O.Ps in their written version  in para-1 contended that  the complaint case is not maintainable   because using of Chest Freezer- 500 Ltr.  for commercial  purpose, hence the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section-2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986.  Complaint petition is not maintainable  after elapse of warranty period of one year from the date of purchaser of Freezer i.e. Dt. 28.2.2015.

The O.Ps in their written version  in para-2 contended that  the complainant  is not a consumer under C.P. Act, 1986 in view of the fact that he was using it for commercial purpose. Therefore the complaint petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold.

                The O.Ps in their written version  in para-3 contended that  as it is ascertained  that the date of purchase of the 500 Ltrs. Chest Freezer  was on Dt. 28.2.2015 and the warranty expires in the midnight of  Dt. 27.2.2016.  Therefore  after lapse of warranty the complaint case is not maintainable.

            Admittedly the complainant was purchased the  above  Freezer  from the  O.P. No.1  on Dt.28.2.2015. (Xerox copies of the  warranty card is in the file which is marked as  Annexure-I) and the same was filed by the complainant  before the forum and warranty  was  expired in the midnight of Dt. 27.02.2016. This forum found the above set has no warranty, hence the complainant  is not entitled to   receive the price of the above set.

            The O.Ps in their written version  in para-10 contended that   on expire of the warranty the complainant  lodged complaint No. 160 3050 1787  Dt.5.3.2016 and as the commercial  unit of the complainant was in remote  area and not within the municipal limit of cities he was instructed  on the very next date after verification to come forward with  the machine to the Service Franchise  O.P. No.2.  As per warranty conditions, he came with the freezer to the authorised centre on Dt. 23.3.2016.  In his presence the freezer was again verified as the warranty was over,  therefore, he deposited Rs.6,500/- for new compressor and Gas charging and deposited the money with the O.P. No.2. It is pertinent to mention here that during   pendency of the Ist. Complaint he lodged the 2^nd. Complaint bearing complaint NO.  160 3160 6015 on Dt. 16.3.2016 as a result  of which the  2^nd. Complaint was cancelled.  After rectification of defects the complainant was intimated over phone to take back the  Freezer. Accordingly the complainant received his freezer from the Service Franchise on Dt. 27.3.2016  after verifying/checking the freezer with full satisfaction. (Xerox copies of the receipt Dt.23.3.2016  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).

            The O.Ps in their written version  in para-11 contended  that  when the complainant himself deposited the money for  replacement of new compressor having six months  warranty, the allegation  to that effect is baseless and hereby denied.  The contention with regard to change of door of the freezer with an    old one and parts with duplicate one are concerned the same is devoid of merit  and hereby denied.  Since, the complainant checked/verified the machine before taking it to own custody  from the O.P. No.2 after  putting his signature in the job sheet, the allegation to that effect is not only concocted but the same is baseless and hereby denied.

            The O.Ps in their written version  in para-12 contended  that  to the effect that the technician took the money and did not rectify the problem  for which he again lodge the 2^nd. Complaint  is not only wrong  but the same is misleading  and hear by denied. For the same of  brevity the verification humbly begs to reiterate the earlier paragraph of the  written version with regard to lodging of 3^rd. complaint bearing No. 16040501787 is concerned  the O.Ps have not received any such complaint   from the complainant and the same was not of Voltas Ltd.

            The O.Ps in their written version  in para-13 contended  that  without rectifying the defects O.P. No.2 has taken the money is concerned, the same is not only   baseless but is devoid of merit and hereby denied. It is submitted  that the complainant himself checked the freezer and the freezer was operated  in his presence before delivery of the same to complainant. Having satisfied, the complainant put his signature in the job-sheet.

            Admittedly the complainant has not complained before the O.P. No.2  on Dt.  23.3.2016 towards   change of door of the freezer with an    old one and parts with duplicate one. (Copies of the  Retail invoice  Dt.23.3.2017  is in the file which is marked as Annexure – 2 ).

 

            In this connection this forum relied citation it is held and reported in C.P.R 2013(4) page-37  the hon’ble State Commission, Mumbai  where in observed  “When commercial purpose is per  se  at  large  complainant can not be  termed as a consumer”.

Admittedly the complainant had purchased the freezer from the O.P.  No.1 towards  its  business to keep the goods in the freezer  for the  purpose of  resale towards  profit.  The O.P. besides stating that the above set was not defective   and submitted that  the complainant is  also not a ‘consumer’ within the  meaning of Section -2(1)(d)(i)  of the C.P. Act, 1986  since the above set   was purchased for ‘commercial purpose’.  Referring to this aspect, the complainant failed  to meet the objection  satisfactorily.

            The complainant admittedly, is a commercial concern and  on a large scale dealing with  to keep the goods  in the Freezer for resale  purpose towards profit  and for that purpose  only the Freezer  in question was purchased by the complainant  from the O.P. Therefore, since ‘commercial purpose’  is  per  se at  large, the complainant can not be termed as a ‘consumer’ within  the meaning of the Act and as such, to entertain the present complaint as a ‘consumer dispute’ is  erroneous on the part the forum.

            Coming to the merit of the other claim that the above set was defective, there is hardly any evidence led on the part of the complainant to establish  the  same.  Job-card on the record corroborates the case of the  O.P.  that whatever  problems the complainant had with the  above set, they were rectified and duly attended from time to time. Thus, even there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P to render  service  during the warranty period and thereafter. For the reasons stated  above  we  not allow the complaint.

We are completely agreed with views taken  and the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.    Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

Dictated and corrected by me.               Pronounced on this         17th .   Day of   May,  2018.

Member.                                                             Member.                                                             President