Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/33/2016

Jayakrushna Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prakash Kumar Agrawal, Prop. of Sheetal Dresses - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 33 OF 2016         

                        Jayakrushna Naik,

                        S/o-Khageswar Naik,

                        At- Kendua, P.O- Bodapalash,

                        P.S- Sadar, Dist- Keonjhar…………………………………...Complainant

                                             Vrs.

                        Prakash Kumar Agrawal,

                        Proprietor of Sheetal Dresses,

                        At-Gandhi Chhak, P.O- Keonjhargarh,

                        P.S- Town, Dist- Keonjhar …………………………………...Op. Party

 

PRESENT: SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

                  SMT. B. GIRI, MEMBER (W)

                Advocate for the Complainant: Self

                Advocate for OP1: Sri S. Panda & Associates

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Date of Filing: 02.08.2016                                                                                      Date of Order: 10.02.2017

SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

1. In brief, the complainant averred, purchased one Schoolbag on dt.21.6.2016 from Sheetal Dresses, Gandhi Chhak, Keonjhar against consideration of Rs.680/- on cash.

2. The complainant also submitted day after the purchase the defect come to the surface. The hand belt/strap held portion became torn apart and loose to out. 

3. On intimating, the shopkeeper received the bag, assured to rectify but neither ensure rectification nor in approach interested in repair or refund.

4. The petitioner also made submission that the shopkeeper misbehaved in not refund and ready to meet any consequence and disregards the laws of the land. Further added the shop sales School uniforms and other accessories not at competitive price, issues receipts not depicting the types of goods sold but citing all the items as uniform, also added the receipt does not reflect receipt No. tax collected and mere an approval slip. The receipt as issued does not at par with rules and regulation of the land and as under the Consumer Protection Act. Such irregularity about the sales and after sales service amounts to unfair trade practice and defrauding the consumers on broad daylight.

5. Prayed for refund, replacement of defect item and relief as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Relied on original sales receipt and affidavit.  

6. The office of the Forum had issued notice to OP. Pursuant to same, the OP appeared and filed the version taking a deferredment date.

7. In admission the OP submitted the transaction is true against the consideration as advanced and contended, the Schoolbag as sold, does not belong to any branded company. So same product lacks warranty or guarantee on the above purchase items to the satisfaction. 

8. The case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action and the petitioner allegation is baseless, imaginary and fabricated to harass the OP & gain of financially benefit so the case be discounted against this OP. 

9. Heard the issues and perused the rival contention in the pleadings.

10. We have gone through all the documents on record. Further the record reveals, the OP is not attending the proceeding, in spite of repeated opportunity as given.

11. As regards to the allegation of defect we found no disputes prevails on the sales of Schoolbag so also it is sheer non-sense, only brand product attracts warranty or guarantee. Non-brand products are not above the law. A product in the street always carries warranty as per the rule. Hence it is proved, the non-brand product Schoolbag is not accorded with statutory liability and the defect made him suffer much.

12. Further we see the OP is reluctant to redress a genuine grievance, in just after a sale in such a situation and failed completely. We also hold a seller cannot wash off his hand after the sales, under the same principle, the seller is under statutory obligation to make replacement or refund against a defect product. In absence of same, it is concluded, the commission of negligence continue to charge upon till eradiction or satisfactory or replenishment. Thus it is substantive, the Schoolbag has defect and same defect is not removed, for which the deficiency of service is continued one.  

13. Under the above noted circumstance, we believe the case of the complaint holds good and on merit, the OP was deficient in rendering service to the complainant as a result the petitioner sustained loss, harassment and mental agony. We allow the complainant with these directions to the OP.           

        

 O R D E R

          The OP is hereby directed to refund the cost of the Schoolbag as received along with a sum of Rs.300/-  (Three hundred)  towards loss, harassment and  litigation charges within  20 days  of this order, failing   @ Rs.10/- per day penalty will be accrued in non-compliance till realization.

     (i) The OP is also directed to issue proper money receipt/ voucher/ or cash memo as per standing law against the future transaction.

    (ii) The OP is further directed to issue cash memo/ bills/ receipts in depicting each item sold or transacted. Non-depiction of items will be deemed as willful suppression to defraud the seller and Govt. squarely.  

 

 Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

 File be consigned to record room.

 Pronounced, 10^th February 2017.

   

                                                                                                                                             

            I agree                                                                                     

       (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                             (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

       Member (W)                                                                                                              President                                                                                                                                          

    DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                 DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                 

           

                                                                     Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                   (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                               (President)       

                                                                         DCDRF, Keonjhar