Orissa

Koraput

CC/1/2017

Sri Jagannath Palo - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Gupteswar Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Self

04 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,
KORAPUT AT JEYPORE-764004
 
Complaint Case No. CC/1/2017
( Date of Filing : 02 Jan 2017 )
 
1. Sri Jagannath Palo
At- Qr.No.H/90, Sector-7, HAL Township, Sunabeda-2
Koraput
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Gupteswar Enterprises
Main Road Semiliguda
Koraput
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. BIPIN CHANDRA MOHAPATRA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Nibedita Rath MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Jyoti Ranjan Pujari MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Self, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 None, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 04 Jul 2017
Final Order / Judgement

1.`                    The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Refrigerator Model RR 19H 1725PZ/TL/2015 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.8366 dt.03.02.2016 for Rs.13, 300/- but after a week of purchase, it started giving defects like unusual sound coming out of the refrigerator while starting the machine and defrosting problem.  Water was coming out of the machine and sweating of HALL Room in total besides water logging.  It is submitted that on complaints, the representative of the OP No.2 came 4 to 5 times and also changed the Chiller Tray and Bin 2 to 3 times but the defects could not be rectified.  One Mr. Binayak, Area Manager of the Company promised either to replace the refrigerator with a new one or to refund its cost.  It is further submitted that as per request of OPs, the complainant submitted original Invoice, ID proof, Passbook front page and canceled cheque on 20.10.2016 but the Ops did not refund the money.  Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum for redressal of his grievance.

2.         `           On being served the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner.  Finally we heard the complainant for orders.  We have also perused the documents filed by the complainant.

3.                     In this case the complainant filed copy of Retail Invoice issued by OP.1 in support of purchase of alleged refrigerator.  The complainant stated that after a week of its purchase, unusual sound was coming out of the refrigerator while starting the machine besides defrosting problem.  Water logging in the Bin and sweating of inside walls were also seen.  The case of the complainant is that he reported the matter 40 to 50 times to the Ops and the Company personnel also attended the refrigerator 4 to 5 times and changed the Chiller tray and Bin 2 to 3 times but the defects could not be removed.  One Mr. Binayak, Area Manager of the OP.2 promised either to replace the refrigerator with a new one or to refund its cost.  As per their advice, the complainant also submitted required documents on 20.10.2016 but the Ops remained silent. 

4.                     In absence of counter and participation of the Ops in this proceeding the above allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  It is seen from the record that the complainant has furnished 4 complaint numbers of different dates along with a copy of letter dt.29.11.2016 addressed to OP.2 requesting early action on the complaints.

5.                     Further the complainant has filed a memo dt.21.6.2017 in this case stating that after filing of this case Ops had contacted him and agreed to refund the cost of the refrigerator but after some days, one person belongs to Ops over telephone intimated the complainant that they will act upon as per the order of the Forum.

6.                     From the above facts and circumstances, it was ascertained that the Ops have sold a defective refrigerator as it did not function soon after purchase.  The complainant has also lodged complaints several times and the Ops also attended the defects many a times but in spite of repairs and change of components the defects could not be rectified.  Finally the Ops have agreed to refund the cost of the refrigerator but they did not comply with their promises.  In the above premises, the complainant should not suffer with the defective refrigerator sold by the Ops.  As such we come to the conclusion that the fridge sold to the complainant has got inherent manufacturing defect as it could not be brought into working order in spite of several repairs.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.13, 300/- towards cost of refrigerator from the OPs with interest @ 12% p.a.  from the date of purchase.  Due to malfunctioning of the refrigerator and subsequent inactions of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs in his favour will meet the ends of justice.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.13, 300/- towards cost of the refrigerator with interest @ 12% p.a. from 03.02.2016 in lieu of defective one and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. BIPIN CHANDRA MOHAPATRA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Nibedita Rath]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jyoti Ranjan Pujari]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.