Orissa

Cuttak

CC/13/2022

Shashi Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Raj Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

B P Bal & associates

14 Sep 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.13/2022

Shashi Mishra,

W/O:Siba Prasad Mishra,

At:Bana Bagicha,Bholamiyan Bazar,

P.O:Tulsipur,P.S:Lalbag,Dist:Cuttack-753008,

Odisha.                                                                                            ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Proprietor,Raj Electronics

Rayal Tower,Madhupatna,

Cuttack-753010,Odisha.

 

2.        The Branch Head,

Jagannath Service(Samsung Authorized Service Center),

Rajendra Nagar,P.S:Madhupatna,

Dist:Cuttack-753010.

 

3.        The Managing Director cum Chairman,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

6^th Floor,DLF Centre,Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                               ... Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    25.01.2022

Date of Order:   14.09.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. B.P.Bal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1 & 3:                 None.

For the O.P No.2:                 Mr. P.K.Mohanty,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                      

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had purchased a Samsung refrigerator from the O.Ps which, according to her, had some manufacturing defects.  She had claimed for a new refrigerator by replacing the defective one but the O.Ps had not listened to her request even though there was warranty subsisting over the said refrigerator.  Time and again the said defective refrigerator of her was being inspected and repaired and she had to bear costs thereof.  She  had paid Rs.1668/- for the purpose of repair of the fridge but the defect still persisted.  Being disgusted after making several requests and chatting and by sending e.mails, the complainant had thereafter approached this Commission by filing this case seeking directions to the O.Ps to refund the cost of her defective refrigerator to the tune of Rs.77,400/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of it’s purchase till its realisation.  She has also prayed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards compensation for her mental agony and harassment alongwith her litigation expenses.  Further she has prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant in order to prove her case has filed documents of her purchase receipt and e.mails as made by her etc.

2.         Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.Ps no.1 & 3 having not contested this case, have been set exparte.  However, O.P No.2 has contested this case and has filed his separate written version.  According to the written version of O.P No.2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice for which the case is liable to be dismissed.  O.P No.2 has further mentioned that the case of the complainant is not maintainable as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice for which the case is liable to be dismissed.  O.P no.2 has further urged that the complainant is not a consumer under the definition of C.P.Act,1986 since because the complainant has neither purchased the refrigerator nor had the complainant given the refrigerator for its repair.  Thus, according to the O.P No.2, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case which is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.    O.P no.2 in his written version has stated that he is to provide after sale service to the customers within the terms and conditions of the warranty and the customer is liable to pay the service charges alongwith charges of the parts if so required.  Thus, in toto it is the urge of the O.P No.2 through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition together with the contents in the written version of the O.P.no.2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the complainant is a consumer under the definition of C.P.Actr,1986?

ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

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

            iv.        Whether the O.Ps had practised any unfair trade ?

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

Issues No.i & ii.

            Out of the four issues, issues no.i & ii are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            Keeping in mind the above two issues, while perusing and scrutinizing the averments of the complaint petition together with the annexures therein, which are copies of the documents relating to the purchase and repair of the alleged Samsung refrigerator, it is noticed that the purchase receipt reflects the name of the complainant only vide Annexure-1.  When the refrigerator had given trouble, time and again she had to file this case which is undoubtedly maintainable.  Accordingly these two issues go in favour of the complainant and the vague plea of O.P No.2 that the complainant is not a consumer is cast aside.

Issues no.3 & 4.

When the complainant had purchased the Samsung refrigerator vide Annexure-2, the same giving trouble time and again and she running after the O.Ps for its repeated  and regular repair, convinces this Commission that infact the O.Ps by not rectifying the defect properly and by not promptly attending the grievances of complainant were thereby deficient in their service towards the complainant.  Thus, they also had infact practised unfair trade.  Accordingly, these two important issues are also answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.vi.

            The complainant is thus entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered,

                                                           ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.P No.2 and exparte against O.Ps no.1 & 3.  The O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable, are directed to refund the consideration amount of Rs.77,400/- as paid by the complainant together with interest thereon @ 9% per annum with effect from 7.12.19(the date of purchase of the said refrigerator from the O.Ps) till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the mental agony and harassment caused to her and also to meet the litigation expenses as incurred by the complainant. This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 14^th day of   September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member