Orissa

Rayagada

CC/58/2018

J.Ramana Murty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Jagannath Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.N. Dash

16 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA, Pin No. 765 001.

 

C.C. Case  No.       58/ 2018.                                         Date.    16      4.2019.

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                          Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

                                   

            Sri J.Ramana   Murty, Rayagada . Cell No. 94371- 65436.                                                                                                                                                             …. Complainant.

            Versus.

            1.The Proprietor, Jagannath Sales shop, Kapilas Hotel Road, New  Colony,    Rayagada.                       

            2. The  Manager, Voltas  Limited, Voltas House, A block, Dr. Babasaheb         Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai (Maharashtra).

            3.The Manager, Voltas Refional office, 8, Gillander House, Netaji Subhash    Road, PB No. 606, Kolkota(West bengal).                        … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri P.N.Dash and associates, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri S.K.Tripathy,  Advocate.

.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund  of Voltas A.C. price  which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  put in their appearance and filed written version through their learned counsel  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.  Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

We have heard the submissions made across by and on behalf of   both the parties by their respective  Learned  counsels, as also  perused the pleadings filed there on.

This forum  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.

There  is no dispute that   the complainant had  purchased  2(two) Nos.   Voltas Split A.C. 1.0 TR   Model   No. 123V EYK  from  the O.P. No. 1  on payment of consideration   a sum   for Rs.35,000/- each in total  Rs.70,000/-  to the  O.P. No.1 (copies of the  Retail invoice No. 3866,  3867  Dt.18.04.2017    inter  alia   warranty  card  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I,2,3).

                The main grievances of the complainant is that due to non  rectification of defects  in  the  above  sets  perfectly  within warranty period   he wants  refund  of price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

                The O.Ps   in their written version contended that   on Date 19^th. April, 2018 O.Ps have received the  complaint  from the complainant  and   registered the complaint     vide SR No. 18041921917.  On DT. 28.4.2018 the technician  has visited and pursuant to the complaint made a thorough check up of the A.C.  have been done and after one hour checking found no problem in the A.Cs but there  was problem in the stabilizer which  have  fitted with the A.Cs found   low out put voltage.  After verifying  the detail   Inter alia  all  parameters observed  were noted on the job sheet and it was found  that the A/Cs. was running perfectly O.K.   Even the complainant has endorsed his signature after being  fully  satisfied  to the services rendered (copies of the service  report  Dt.28.4.2018 is in the file which  are marked as Annexure-4).

In this context  this forum for better appreciation relied citations which are mentioned here to support the present case in hand.

                It is held and reported  in C.P.R. 2009 (4) page No.88  in the case of  Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Vrs. M/S. Om Prakash Kidar Nath   the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab   where  in observed  “Manufacturing  defect(s) should be repaired or removed. Replacement or refund of price is not justified in every case”.

                Further it is held and reported in   National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases  1986-94 page No. 1367 (NS)   in the case of  M/S. Tata Engineering  & Locomotive Co. Ltd. And another  Vrs. M.Moosa the  National Commission where in observed  “If the manufacturing defects pointed out then the  manufacturers  should be directed to repair the manufacturing defects and not replacement of the  vehicle or refund  of its price. 

Again  it is settled proposition of law as held in the case of Ravneet Singh BaggaVrs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 1999(3) CPJ- 28 (SC), it was  held that the burden of proving  the  deficiency in service  is upon the   person who alleges it.  In case of   bona  fide    disputes to willful fault,  imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality,  nature or manner of performance in the service can be informed. If on facts it is  found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all  precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the  course of the transaction and that their  action or the final decision was  in good faith, it can not be said that there  had been any deficiency in service. In the present   case in hand the complainant has failed to prove any  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Further in the case of   Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vrs. Susheel  Kumar Gabgotra and others (AIR-2006)S.C 1586 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “Warranty conditions clearly refers to replacement of defective part not the  car – Not a case of silence of a contract of sale to warranty”.

Again in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vrs. Shri  Ajwant Singh & Another reported in  2014(3) CPR- 724  N.C.,  the  Hon’ble National Commission opined that “Manufacturing defect must be proved by expert opinion”.

The O.Ps  vehemently argued that in this case there is no defect in the  above set of the complainant, but the complainant has filed this fabricated complaint only to  tarnish the reputation of the O.Ps within  warranty period    and to secure the unlawful gains from the O.Ps.

Admittedly the  purchase of the above  set   by the complainant is not denied.  The O.Ps have given an undertaking that they are  ready to  give the free  service and change the parts  with out charging  any price  as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said set within warranty period. 

In the present case  in hand the complainant   has failed to establish any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the  O.Ps.  Further  we found that  there is no reliable expert evidence to hold that   the above set suffered from any manufacturing defect    inter alia no  sustentative pleading have been incorporated  in the complaint to prove negligence on the  part of the   O.Ps. 

This forum agree with the views taken by the O.Ps   in their written version. 

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we are of the decisive opinion that the instant case  is devoid  of merit.  Further  this forum do not find any other legal issue involved in the matter. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason which would call  for our interference.

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

                                                                        O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  disposed off on contest against the O.Ps. 

The O.Ps are  directed to remove all  the defects  of the above  2  number A.C. sets including  replacement of defective parts if any free of cost enabling the complainant to use the same in perfect running condition like a new one  if the complainant  approached  the O.Ps  to rectify the defect of his   sets  and shall provide all sort of after sale service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the  warranty of the afore said   sets  with  extended further one year fresh warranty.  There   is   order to pay  Rs.1,500/- towards litigation  expenses.

Serve the copies of the  above order to the parties as per rule.

                Dictated and corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on         16^th  .   day  of   April, 2018.

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT