Orissa

Cuttak

CC/52/2018

Santosh Ku Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Patra Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

S Mishra

21 May 2019

ORDER

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

C.C No.52/2018

 

Sri Santosh Kumar Dash,

At:4D/948,Sector-10,C.D.A,

P.S:Phase-II,P.O:Bidanasi,Dist:Cuttack.                                 … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

                                                                                  

 

1.        M/s. Patra Electronics,

Sector-6,C.D.A,P.S:Markatnagar,Sector-7,

Dist:Cuttack.

 

2.        M/s. Jagannath Services,(Authorized Service Center),

71/1,Rajendra Nagar,48,Cuttack-753010.

 

3.        M/s. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.,

20^th to 24^th Floor,Two Horizon Center,

Woter-C,Vipul Tech Square Golf Course Road,

Sector-43,DLF,PH-V,Gurgaon,Haryana,122202.                      … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member(W).

 

Date of filing:       04.05.2018

Date of Order:     21.05.2019

 

For the complainant        :  Mr. S.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.     

For the O.P.No.1.             :  Self     

For the O.P No.2 & 3       :   Mr. K.C.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.                  

 

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

The complainant having attributed deficiency in service to the O.Ps has filed this complaint before this Forum seeking appropriate reliefs as prayed in his consumer complaint.

1. Facts in short leading to institution of this case are that the complainant had purchased a single door refrigerator of SAMSUNG make in the year 2007 which developed some mechanical defects after long use.  On inspection made by the service personnel of the authorized company, it was advised that instead of repairing the said refrigerator; the complainant should go for a new one considering its cost factor.  Ultimately the complainant purchased a SAMSUNG refrigerator from O.P.1 for consideration of Rs.17,000/- on 21.2.18.  The old defective refrigerator was also exchanged by O.P.1 but nothing was paid to him in return.  Annexure-1 is the copy of the invoice showing purchase of the said refrigerator.  There was warranty of 10 years for it.  Annexure-2 is the copy of the warranty card enclosed with the case.  Three days thereafter the said refrigerator was installed in the house of the complainant but it was found defective.  Some unusual noise was coming from that refrigerator, its body was vibrating and there was no formation of ice in the chamber.  The service personnel left the place stating that the refrigerator installed will function automatically after 72 hours but in fact  it did not.   Then the complainant lodged a complaint with the O.Ps in their help line number on 28.2.18 but nobody turned up even after 7 days of filing complaint.  The complainant then made a second complaint and lastly on 10.3.18 two service engineers of the local service centre came to the house of the complainant and on inspection, opined that there was some manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.  They made necessary entries in the job card but the copy of it was not handed over to the complainant.  Annexure-3 is the copy of the acknowledgement of service request filed in this case taken by the complainant in his mobile phone despite protest.

On 14.3.18 the complainant got a phone call from O.P.2 who suggested remedy i.e. either for replacement of the defective refrigerator or for refund of money.When the complainant opted for refund of money, the service personnel of O.P.2 told him to keep the document ready for collection for office use..On 16.3.18 one Sesadev Nanda, service engineer of the company came and collected those documents.

The complainant and his family members were absent from their station from 17.3.18 to 4.4.18 since they had gone outsideState in connection with their professional work.During that period on 24.3.18 O.Ps 2 & 3 made phone calls to the complainant and told him to replace a new refrigerator in place of the old defective one within two days but the complainant expressed his inability to oblige the O.ps in his absence.On 5.4.18 the complainant again contacted the O.P.3 but he was misbehaved by the Service Manager,Sambit Nanda.The service manager out rightly refused to replace the refrigerator or to refund the cost.In subsequent occasions he has contacted the O.Ps 2 & 3 over phone at different times but it yielded no result.He has annexed copy of the acknowledgement of the service request in this case which has been marked as Annexure-4.The conduct and behavior of the O.Ps has caused much mental tension and agony to him and it is tantamount to deficiency in service.As such it is prayed that the O.Ps may be directed to refund the cost of the refrigerator amounting to Rs.17,000/- , to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- together with cost to the complainant in the interest of justice.

2. O.P No.1, dealer of the refrigerator in his written version has categorically stated that being a dealer he has received complaint from the complainant and it has been intimated to the Company’s authorized service centre for necessary action on the very day.  He has disowned his liability in this case as he is a mere authorized dealer.
3. O.Ps 2 & 3 have jointly filed written version of their case stating that there is no cause of action to file the case.  He has not come to the Forum in clean hands and there is suppression of material fact.  There is also no deficiency in service on their part in any manner.  All the material assertions have been traversed so far as deficiency in service on the part of O.P Nos.2 & 3 are concerned.  It is prayed that the consumer complaint is vague and baseless and as such it may be dismissed.  The O.Ps 2 & 3 have made references to a number of annexures but not a single annexure has been filed in this case.
4. We have heard the learned counsels from both the sides and gone through the case record and its enclosures.
5. During course of argument, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsels from both the parties that they have entered into an amicable settlement outside the court and accordingly the O.Ps 2 & 3 are ready and willing to make full payment of cost of the defective SAMSUNG T.V towards full and final settlement of the claim and it is accepted by the complainant.  A separate memo has also been filed to this effect signed by both the parties.  Hence ordered;

                                                                                ORDER

The case is allowed on compromise against the O.Ps.O.Ps 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to make payment of the full cost of the defective SAMSUNG TV amounting to Rs.17,000/- to the complainant .The said SAMSUNG TV be returned to O.P.2 or 3 or their authorized signatory.

This order shall take effect within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

    Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 21^st day of May,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                          President.

                                                             

                                                                                                                (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)