Orissa

Cuttak

CC/97/2020

Sunil Kumar Acharya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Patra Electronics Proprietor K C Patra - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 Jan 2023

ORDER

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

                                                C.C.No.97/2020

 

          Mr. Sunil Kumar Acharya,

                        S/O:LateJitendriya Acharya,

Resident of Deulasahi, P.O:Tulasipur,

P.S:Bidanasi, Town/Dist:Cuttack

          PIN-753008.                                                    ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.          Patra Electronics, represented through its Propriertor K C Patra ,Sector -6,CDA,

(Infront of Rotary Eye Hospital),

P.O:Abhinaba Bidanasi, P.S:Markatnagar,

               Town/Dist: Cuttack,PIN-753014

 

2.          M/s. Carrier Medea India Pvt. Ltd.,

Regd. Office at 1^stFloor,Pearl Global Tower,

Plot No.51,Institutiional Area,Sector-32,

Gurgaon-122004,Haryana.                                                              ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    24.11.2020

Date of Order:  31.01.2023

 

For the complainant:            Self.

For the O.P no.1.      :            Mr. D.D.Dash,Advocate.

For the O.P no.2       :            None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                               

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a Carrier 5 Star A.C. of 18K Superior Pro-N Inv Split-5 vide Invoice No.CDA-S0012590 from O.P no.1 for a price of Rs.41,900/- which had warranty for two years.  Few months after using the said A.C machine, some problems cropped up in it which the complainant had brought to the notice of the O.Ps seeking for its repair or replacement.  But inspite of all his efforts, the same was not attended to by either of the O.Ps for which the complainant had to issue legal notice to both of them on 25.9.2020 and ultimately had to file this case claiming refund of Rs.41,900/- from the O.Ps together with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and has demanded cost of his litigation also from them.  Further the complainant has prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

          In order to establish his case the complainant has filed copies of several documents as regards to the purchase of the said A.C. split machine from the O.Ps.

2.       Out of the two O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.2 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.30.9.2022.  However, O.P no.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version.  According to the written version of O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  It is the claim of O.P no.1 through his written version that he is neither the manufacturer nor the after sale service provider and after the sale is complete he has no role to pay for which he has prayed to dismiss the case against him being not maintainable.

          He has also filed copies of some documents in order to support his stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.ii.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

Admittedly as it is noticed here in this case, the A.C. machine purchased by the complainant was within the warranty period when it had developed some problems but the O.Ps had not responded to the grievances of the complainant in that context.  Ofcourse, the complainant alleges about the manufacturing defect in the said A.C. machine but he has failed to substantiate  his such claim by examining the defective A.C. machine through any expert.  Be that as it may, when he had paid the consideration amount of Rs.41,900/- and had purchased the A.C. Split machine from the O.Ps and when the said A.C. machine had developed some defects within the warranty period, it was the duty of either of the O.Ps to attend the problem of the said A.C. machine by intimating/sending the authorised service providers.  Buy not doing so and by taking the plea as taken by the O.P no.1 that he has no role to play and his duty is only to sell, do not suffice here in this case.  He being the product-seller is equally liable as well as to that of the product-manufacturer.  Thus, the O.Ps here in this case are found to be deficient in their service towards the complainant by not attending to the defective split A.C. machine as purchased by him from them which was within the warranty period.  This issue thus goes in favour of the complainant.

Issuesno.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                                            ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.P no.1 & exparte against O.P no.2.  Both the are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, they are directed to repair/replace the defective split A.C. machine of the complainant or in the alternative to refund the cost of the A.C. machine to the complainant within a month hence i.e. Rs.41,900/- together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a from the date of purchase till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment alongwith a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the litigation cost of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 31^st  day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

 

                                                                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                         Member