Orissa

Rayagada

CC/170/2017

Sri Satyajit Subudhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Reliance JIO Retiail Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

09 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                      PO/DIST; RAYAGADA,   STATE:  ODISHA ,Pin No. 765001

 

C.C. Case  No.      170          / 2017.                             Date.   9      7. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

.

Sri Satyajit  Subudhi @ Satya Subudhi, S/O: Sri Umakant Subudhi,

C/O: OM   Collection,  Po/Dist: Rayagada,State:Odisha, Cell No.9437372801.                            …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The   Proprietor, Reliance Jio Retail Ltd., Station Road,  Near Balaram Bhawan,  Po/Dist:  Rayagada, 765 001.

2. The   Service  Manager, Reliance Digital, 3^rd. floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Mumbai, Mumbai City, Dist: Maharashtra, India- 400002.                                  … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri R. K. Senapati, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri Asish  Kumar Panda, Authorised person of the  Reliance Company.

 

                                                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 price of the Reconnect  television set  a sum of Rs.38, 691/- towards found defective during warranty period     for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant had purchased  Reconnect Television, bearing model No.  Reconnect  Relee 4303    from the O.P. No.1 on Dt.19.07.2017  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.38,691/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period . The above set   found defective  within the warranty  period such as  the display screen  does not work. The complainant feel there is manufacturing defect in the set.   The complainant complained the matter to the  Service centre of the O.Ps.  Inspite of repeated  contact the service centre refused to rectify or replace the same.   Now the above set is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps to  refund purchase price of the above set   a  sum of Rs. 38,691/- to the complainant  & such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version through their authorised  person  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.Psprays 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  persons, 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.

Undisputedly the complainant had  purchased  Reconnect Television, bearing model No.  Reconnect  Relee 4303    from the O.P. No.1 on Dt.19.07.2017  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.38,691/ - to the  O.P. No.1 (copies of the  Retail invoice-Cum-cash bill No.  EAN3: 8902901230437    Dt. 19.7.2017  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).

            The main grievance of the complainant  was that   the above set  was found defective  within  short  period during  the warranty  period  i.e.  the display screen  does not work, the television does not start.  So the complainant feel there is manufacturing defect in the set.   The complainant complained the matter to the  Service centre of the O.Ps .  Inspite of repeated  contact the service centre refused to rectify or replace the same.   Now the above set is unused. So the  complainant  had requested    the O.Ps   to replace or refund purchase  price of the above set but the O.Ps     turned deaf ear. Hence this C.C. case.

On perusal of the record  it is revealed that  the fact of the  purchase  of   Television    is not denied by the  O.Ps.  It is admitted position the complainant having  purchased   above goods for  consideration  having the warrantee for one year.

It is admitted position of law that when   a  goods sold  by the  manufacturer has under gone  servicing   the complainant is entitled to thoroughly  check up  of the above set   and   to  remove   the defects  of   the above set  with fresh warrantee

The O.Ps   in their written version contended that  the complainant instead of approaching the authorised service centre has directly come up this   frivolous and concocted complaint. Further the complainant has failed to furnish  any evidence in connection with any communication with the O.P. Additionally, the complainant has  not provided   any evidence regarding manufacturing  defects in the product.  It is therefore clearly established that the complainant  has provided false information in the complaint  to mislead the forum and to unnecessarily harass the O.P  by filing  the false complaint.  

It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the above  product namely Reconnect Television, bearing model No.  Reconnect  Relee 4303   from  the O.P. No. 1  after being allured by the advertisement  of Naaptol Shopping Festival. But no doubt it is a unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party because the Opposite Party has not acted as per theiradvertisement. It is the case of the complainant that with in  warranty period , the product was found defective and after complaint the Opposite Party failed to rectify the same. It is not denied by the opposite parties that the defect in the product is not within the warranty period and when the defect is found within the warranty period the opposite party is to give service or replace the same which they assured to the customer. Since the product found defective after its purchase and the complainant informed the Opposite Party again and again regarding the defect but the Opposite Parties  failed to rectify or replace the defect.  At this stage we hold that if the product in question found defective with in warranty period, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if a defective product is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new one or remove the defects of the above set. In the instant case as  it is appears that the electronic product which was purchased by the complainant had developed defects and the Opposite Party was unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the electronic product with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and  deprived of using the same and the defects were not removed by the Opposite Party who knew the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity orstandard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality , nature and manner of performance which is  required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. With in warranty period, the electronic product  has  given problem for which complainant made complaint to the OP but  subsequently the OP failed to replace the same ,which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. That it is also a fact that the OPs giving alluring and misleading advertisement like giving lottery benefit is drawing customer which  tends to unfair trade practice. Therefore, the O.Ps  are  liable to   remove the defects of the abov set  with out charging  any price  with cost of litigation for filing this dispute. Hence, we allowed the complaint partly and dispose of the matter with the following directions.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

 

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

                                                                       

ORDER.

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

The O.P No. 2 (Manufacturer) is   directed to remove all  the defects  including  replacement of   display  screen  of   Reconnect Television, bearing model No.  Reconnect  Relee 4303 with a new  one defect free which  is  lying defunct, unused  at complainant’s  premises and repair free of cost enabling the complainant to use the same in perfect running condition like a new one    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   set  with  extended further  1(one) year  fresh warranty.  The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.1,500/- towards  litigation expenses.

Further  the O.P. No.1 (Dealer)  is directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2 (Manufacturer) for early compliance of the above order and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No.2 to provide satisfying service  for which he is entitled.

This  is to  be  complied   by the O.Ps.  within 45 days  from the date of receipt of this order. 

Copies of the order be served  on the parties free of cost  as per rule.

Dictated  and corrected by me.  Pronounced on  this         9^th.   day   of       July,  2019. 

Member.                              Member.                                          President.

 

.