OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBERS .
Consumer Complaint No. 192 of 2009
Date of Filling : -06.10.2009.
Date of Order :- 07 .08.2018.
Karamat Khan,S/O.Late Nababuddhin Khan,
At- Qr.No. CCI/77,CISF,Unit Nalco,P.O/P.S-Nalco
Nagar,Dist.Angul,Pin- 759122.
_________________________Complainant.
Vrs.
01.Prabin Gaur, The Proprietor,DIGITAL Shoppy,
At/P.O- Kandasar,P.S.Nalco Nagar, Angul.
02. Samsung India,Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,7th Floor,
IFCI Tower,61 Neheru,Place ,New Delhi.
_________________________ Opp. parties.
For the complainant :- Sri S.Mishra & associates(Advs.).
For the opp.party No.1 :- Sri P.K.Acharaya & associates (Advs).
For the opp.party No.2 :- Sri Arindya Bose (Authorized Person)
: J U D G E M E N T :
Sri D. C. Mishra, President.
The complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the opp.parties to give a new defect free fridge against 230 liters Samsung Refrigerator (RA 23F-M,Silver) which he had purchased from opp.party No. 1 on 15.10.2008 for Rs. 12,600.00 only along with cost and litigation charges.
2. Briefly stated the complainant’s case runs thus :-
That, on 15.10.2008 the complainant had purchased one 230 liters Samsung Refrigerator (RA 23F-M,Silver) from opp.party No.1 for Rs. 12,600.00 only. It is alleged that after using the said fridge for about 2/3 months, the complainant noticed defect in the door of the fridge. According to him, the door of the fridge was not opening with normal force and in minimum point temperature control knob , extra ice was being deposited inside the fridge causing much inconvenience to the complainant. On complaint of the complainant, the mechanic of opp.party No.1 checked the fridge and admitted that the complain of the complainant was genuine and he also opined about other problems . Though the mechanic tried his best but could not fully repair the fridge . On complaint again the opp.party No.1 sent another mechanic who could not repair the fridge and opined that the gasket of the door required replacement. The complainant also lodged complaint before opp.party No.2 in toll free number but to no effect. So he has filed this case.
3. Opp.party No.1 appeared through advocate but did not file show cause. The authorized signatory (Agent)of opp.party No.2 filed written version on 5.2.2018 with prayer to dismiss the case on the grounds that it has no merit at all .
4. In view of the above rival pleadings of the parties, the following issues arise for consideration.
Issues :-
Whether there is any cause of action to file the case, the case is maintainable and there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties ?
Whether a new fridge can be given to the complainant .
To what reliefs the parties are entitled to ?
: F I N D I N G S :
Issues No.(i):- Since the complainant has purchased the fridge from opp.party No.1 by paying cash and opp.party No.2 is the manufacturing company, therefore there is service provider and consumer relationship exists between the parties. The fridge became defective within the warranty period but the opp.parties did not repair or replace it, for which the complainant has good cause of action to file the case and the case is maintainable.
Issue No.(ii):- In the petition the complainant has mentioned that after 2/3 months of using the fridge ,defect was noticed on the door. Thus, from the very binging of purchase, the fridge was not defective. The authorised person of opp.party No.2 relied on a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in “(2002) 3 CPF 92 (NC),K.L.Arora Vrs. Groovy Communications”, where in it has been held that :-
“ Export evidence is badly necessary for proving manufacturing defect”.
The Consumer Protection Act also prescribes that, in order to prove manufacturing defect, the concerned fridge should be examined through experts and report must be submitted . In the case at hand, the complainant has not taken any steps for testing the defective fridge by any expert. In the above premises it cannot be said that there is manufacturing defect in the alleged fridge of the complainant.
The advocate’s notice sent by the complaint to opp.party No.1 has not been responded by him. The notice very clearly reveals that after 2/3 months of purchase of the fridge severe defect was noticed on its door. The defect occurred within the warranty period but the opp.parties failed to remove it. Therefore, they made gross deficit in rendering service by not repairing the fridge of the complainant .So the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment. In the above premises the opp.parties should refund 50% of the price of the fridge i.e Rs. 6250.00 only to the complainant.
5. In view of the discussions made above, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 6,250.00 only towards his loss. He should also get Rs. 2000.00 towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000.00 towards cost of litigation.
6. Hence ordered :-
: O R D E R :
The case is disposed of on contest against the opp.parties and in favour of the complainant. Both the opp.parties are directed to pay Rs. 6,250.00 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) only towards loss sustained by the complainant, Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand) towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000.00(Rupees Two Thousand) towards cost of litigation {total Rs. 10,250.00(Rupees Ten Thousand Two Hundred Fifty )} to the complainant within 45 days of getting this order. It is made clear that each of the opp.parties will pay half of the awarded amount i.e Rs. 5,125.00 only to the complainant. It is clarified that this amount will carry 12% yearly compoundable interest from the 46 (forty-six) days of getting this order in case the order is not complied.
Order delivered in the open forum
today the 7th August,2018with hand
and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me Sd/-
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
Sd/- President.
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
President.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sri K.K.Mohanty), (Smt.S.Mallick),
Member. Member.
