Orissa

Rayagada

CC/139/2019

Biplaba Keshari sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Chabiram Digital shoppe - Opp.Party(s)

Self

09 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

At: Kasturinagar,  Ist. Lane,  LIC office  back, POST  /  DIST: Rayagada, 

STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001. E-mail  -    dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     139      / 2019.                          

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                             President

Sri    Satish  Kumar  Panigrahi,                                             Member.

 

Sri Biplaba Keshari  Sahu, S/O: Pralaya Kumar Sahu, Advocate by profession , Indira Nagar,4^th.lane, Rayagada.  7008696451                                                         …Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Propritor, Chabiram Digital shop, UST Road, Rayagada.

2.The Chief Executive  HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,  24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur main road,  Adugoldi, Bangalore- 560030.

3.The Chief Manager-cum-Authorised officer,  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground floor,  front tower mohan  cooperative industrial Estates, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                                                … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:-Self.

For the O.P No.:- Set epxarte.

For the O.P. No.2:-Sri Sana Jagadish  Kumar, Advocate.

For the O.P. No.3:- Sri  K.Ch.Mohapatra, Advocate, BBSR.

J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  purchase  price  towards defective  printer model No.2071  which was not functioning within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has  summarised here under.    

That  the complainant  had purchased  a   printer model No.2071  from the O.P No.1 on DT.5.5.2019  by paying   consideration   a sum of Rs.11,000/- bearing  invoice No. 2979  Dt.5.5.2019. The O.Ps. had   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period. The  above set   found defective  within the warranty  period and became totally useless and defunct. The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps.from time to time  over phone  but the O.Ps are turned deaf ear to his request. Inspite of repeated  approach   to the O.Ps for rectification  of the defects but the O.Ps paid deaf ear.   Now the above set is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this complaint petition  filed by the complainant and prays  direct the O.Ps to refund  purchase  price of the above  set and such other relief as the  District  Commission deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed the O.P No.. 1   neither entering in to appear before the commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 adjournments had been taken by them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 3 years   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  thefrom  the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.1. The action of the O.P No.1 are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the  C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps.   1   was set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over  as to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

The O.Ps 2 & 3   put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   and prayer  to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act  and submitted that   the facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps  2& 3  prays the commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard  the case  and  arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

Further  the O.Ps have filed  evidence by way of affidavit  during the course of the hearing.

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

It  is a fact  that  the  complainant  had  purchased  the  printer model No.2071  from the O.P No.1 on DT.5.5.2019  by paying   consideration   a sum of Rs.11,000/- bearing  invoice No. 2979  Dt.5.5.2019 (Copies of the Invoice  is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-1).

  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant  after using  some months for rectification of defects  from  time to time  he  approached the O.Ps  for rectification  of the defects  but till date the O.Ps  have not rectified the  above set.

On perusal of the record we observed that  the complainant made several complaints with the O.Ps pointing out the defects  which goes on to show that  right from  the very beginning  the above set was not performing  well and continued  repeatedly to develop defects  resulting  in  non-performance which was intimated by the complainant  to the O.Ps from time to time over phone.   Further we observed that  on repeated complaints made  by the complainant to the O.Ps neither the defects have been removed nor replaced  with a new  set. We observed  inspite of  required  services made  with in the  warranty  period  the above set could not be rectified.  We  hold   at this stage if the above goods required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it has a manufacturing defect. If a defective set  is supplied a consumer   is entitled to get refund of the price of the  set or to replaced  with a new set and also the consumer concerned is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the  above  set which was purchased by the complainant  had developed  defects and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period.

On perusal of the record  it is revealed that  the fact of the  purchase  of the Printer     is not denied by the  O.Ps.  It is admitted position the complainant having  purchased   above goods for  consideration  having the warrantee for replacement/refund   is  entitled  to him.

The main grievance of the complainant  is that   inspite  of repeated  repair by the   O.Ps  within  warranty  period       the defect  of    the Printer  was not rectified  for smooth  functioning.   Hence the complainant prays  to  refund the price of the   Printer.

It is admitted position of law that when   a  goods sold  by the  manufacturer has under gone  servicing   and even such  servicing  the same defects  persist  it   is deemed  to be a  manufacturing defect.   Hence the complainant is entitled to thoroughly  check up  of the above  set   and   to  remove   the defects  of   the above set  with fresh warrantee .

Prior  to  come in to the conclusion  we relied  these observations  as It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781  where in  the Hon’ble State  Commission , Chandigarh observed  the dealer is the person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality   of goods sold and in case  the consumer  had problem with the defective goods, the dealer was under an obligation to refer the matter  to the manufacturer for necessary  relief, which  in the  instant case was done.

.

             It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the above  set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the above set. In this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use   of the set and deprived of using the above set for such a long time and the defects were not removed by the O.Ps who could know the defects from time to time from the complainant.   

On fore going  discussion and settled principles of law  there  exists a strong “prima-facie” case in favor of the complainant for which the O.Ps are liable.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.   

                                      ORDER.

 In resultant  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on contest against  the O.Ps.   

The O.P No.2 (H.P.India)  is  ordered  to take back their Printer and  refund  purchase  price of the Printer a sum of Rs.11,000.00  to the  complainant  within 30 days  from the date of receipt of this order.  The parties are left to bear their own cost.

The O.P  No. 1 & 3  are  ordered   to  refer the matter to the O.P. No. 2  ( H.P. India) for  early compliance of the above order  and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No.2  ( H.P. India ) to provide satisfying service  for which he is entitled.

 

 Copies of the same  be supplied to all  the parties free  of cost as mandated by the  C.P. Act,1986/2019. The Judgement be uploaded forthwith in the website  of the commission for the perusal  of the parties. File be consigned to record  room along with  a copy of  this  judgement.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on this                26th.   Day of    August,         2022.

 

                               

                                    MEMBER.                                                     PRESIDENT.