Orissa

Rayagada

CC/53/2018

Sayeed Noorul Hoque - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Utakal Technology Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA, Pin No. 765 001.

C.C. Case  No.  53/ 2018.                                              Date.     2   .     4  . 2019

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                          Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri  Sayeed  Noorul  Hoque,  S/O: Sayeed   Zuhurul Haque,  Raniguda Farm, Rayagada.

Cell No. 8249335994, 6371216286.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …..Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Propritor, Utkal  Techology Solutions, At: Indira Nagar, 3^rd. lane, Po/Dist:Rayagada.

2.Sri  Ranjit Panigrahi, Proprietor,  Utkal  Techology Solutions, At: Ananta Plaza, Ground Floor, Bijipur Road,  Near Bijipur SBI   Branch, Po: Berhampur, Dist:Ganjam,Odisha State.

3,Sri  Sanjeev Sitaram Parasarampuria, Director, Best IT World   Pvt. Ltd., 87,  Mistry Industrial Complex,  MIDC cross Road, ‘A’ Andheri (E) Mumbai, 400093, Maharashtra state.

4. Sri  Seemana Kumar Patnaik,  Director,  No. 35, 3^rd. floor, 51/27, Swamy Towers,  Chinapanahalli,  Marthalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore.- 560037 State :Karnataka.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Opposite  party.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps 1 ,2 &4:- Set  exparte.

For the O.P  No.3:- Authroised agent of the 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 C.C. Camera 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 1,2 & 4  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 1(One) year  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  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps1,2 & 4  . The action of the O.Ps 1,2 & 4   are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps 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   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.

Heard arguments from the O.P No.3  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

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.

On  perusal  of the record  this forum   observed   the  complainant  has purchased  two Nos. of C.C.   Bullet  camera  and one DVR of  4 channel  of I Ball compnay  with  3 year warranty  from the  O.P. No.2  through  O.P. No. 1  vide  bill No. 484 Dt. 1.1.2017  and paid consideration amount a sum of Rs.20,500/- (copies of the  bill is in the file  which is marked as Annexure-I).    Due to non functioning properly  the above  set  the O.P. No.1 & 2   had removed the I Ball  set and  had installed  two Camera and DVR of Scureye Company i.e. the O.P. No.4  and charged  Rs.2,000/- extra and producted another bill for Rs.22,440/- vide bill No. 872 Dt. 31.12.2017. (Copies of the bill is in the file which is marked as Anneexure-2).

The complainant stated that from the day one of its purchase, some inherent problems  are there  and    not functioning  properly.  After lapse of four  months  in spite of repeated approaches  the O.Ps are paid deaf ear hence this C.C. case.

 

The  O.P.No.3  in their  written version contended that .the O.P. No.1  has removed the I Ball set and installed  two cameras and DVR of  Secureye company  i.e.  O.P. No.4  and producted another bill.   The O.P. No.3 submitted that the said facts sufficient to prove that the another company C.C.TV Camera was installed and not O.P.No.3 CC TV Canera. Hence the O.P. No.3 required to drop from  present  proceeding. 

 

During the course of exparte hearing  the complainant  annexed  certain documents such as the  purchase  invoices of the  above set.

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.Ps  there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the forum  whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in not rectifying  the defect  in the C.C. Camera  as well as in not replacing the entire   defective  parts  of the above set  in question  with a new one  as per the  provisions laid down under section- 14 of the  C.P. Act.

Law is well settled that no dealer can absolute himself from the liability of selling  any substandard goods as he can always prevail  upon the  manufacturer for redressing  the grievance of a consumer. It is also well settled  in a catena of decision that both the manufacturer and dealer are  jointly  and severally liable  to its customer. It is held and reported in  2004 CTJ  Page No. 205  the hon’ble Supreme Court  has clearly  observed that “ in case of delivery of defective goods to the customer the liability to pay him the amount  is joint and several of the  dealer and manufacturer”.

 

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that  inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the deficiency in service and as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the forum claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable.

                

               We observed during the warranty period the above set has been found defective and O.Ps have been requested  to replace the entire defective   of the above set.   After receipt of the grievances, no action has been taken by the said O.Ps in ensuring repair/replacement of the set as alleged. Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service and in that line we hold that   the O.Ps. No.1,2 & 4    are jointly and severally liable  to  refund the price  of the above set.

 

 

On the basis of the pleadings, the following  points  are  need to be answered  for determination  of this case.

(i)        Whether the C.C. Camera  set  is having  any   manufacturing defect ?

(ii)       Whether there is any deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties , if so, is he liable for compensation and to what extent ?

 

 Point No.1

                         It is the case of the complainant that   after its  purchase , the C.C. Camera  set   given problem and after  replacement  with a new one   by  the   O.Ps  the same problem exists . If the defect in the above  set is not  a manufacturing one , the service centre could have able to remove it  and  at least within the warranty period there would be   no further defect  in the set but in the instant case, the defects could not be removed. Again and again  the defect was detected for which the complainant was not able to use it  and ultimately took the shelter of this forum.       Hence, it is clear that  the defects in the above set  was not rectified  at  the  service centre  and the set  was returned to the complainant with the existing problem and  the O.Ps  totally failed to repair the  set  as the defects in the above set is a manufacturing one.

                        Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard 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.

                        Hence,  the Issue  No.1 is answered   in favour of complainant.

 

Point No.2

                        As the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant , 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”.  Since the date of purchase , the above set  given problem for which complainant  informed the O.Ps,   but the O.Ps till  date has not rectified the defects, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, the O.Ps are liable to refund the amount of the above set and  also they are liable to pay compensation for mental agony   along with  cost of litigation  for filing this dispute. Accordingly, the Point No. 2 is answered  in favour of the complainant. 

                        Hence, we  allow the complaint in  part and  dispose of the matter with the following directions.

                      

                                                                 ORDER

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

                        The Opposite  Parties  No. 1 , 2  and  4  - being the dealer &  manufacturer are  directed to refund the purchase amount of Rs.22,500/-  to the complainant and take  back the defective set from the complainant besides  to   pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony inter alia  to pay  cost of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. The matter is disposed of with  the direction to the O.P. No. 1 , 2 and 4  to make the payment to the complainant within one month,

                        The  O.P. No.3 is directed to refer the  matter to the  1,2 and 4  for early  compliance  of the above order.                      

                        A copy of this order  as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parities free of charge.

 

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 30 days from the  date of receipt   of this order  by the O.Ps.

Dictated and corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on         2nd. day of   April, 2019.

 

MEMBER                                                MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT