Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/25/2017

Sudhansu - Complainant(s)

Versus

ProPriter,M/s-Hindustan Steel - Opp.Party(s)

P.k Patra

13 Dec 2017

ORDER

    IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

KEONJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 25 OF 2017

Sri Sudhansu Shekhar Panda, Advocate,

Aged about 48 years,

S/0- Sri Raja Kishore Panda,

Secretary of INDIAN NATIONAL VOLUNTEERS

Of at- Garh Sahi,Po-Kendujhar  Bazaar, PS-Town

Dist-Keonjhar, …………………………………………………………………………………..……..Complainant

vrs

1.Proprietor, M/S: Hindustan Steel,

At-Gandhi Chowk, New Market,

Po-KendujharGarh, P.s-Town,

Dist-Kendujhar,Odisha

 

2. Managing director/ concerned Authority,

Karni Thermoplast Pvt. Ltd

At-Banapriya, Po-Kuruda,Dist-Balasore,

Email-maroobishnu@yahoo.com

Odisha………….…………………………………………………………………………………………Opp .Parties

 

  Present:

   Shri Purusottam Samantara,President

   Smt. B.Giri Member(W)

   Sri Bharat Bhusan Das (M)

 

    Advocate for complainant- Self

    Advocate for O.P-1- P.K Patra &associates

    Advocate  for   O.P-2  -    None

 

  Date of filing  - 05.06.2017                                                                             Date of Order- 13.12.2017

 

 

1.Sri Purusottam Samantara- The set up of the complaint is that the complainant purchased one water tank-1000L cap styled named “ Himgiri” along with necessary accessories against a paid consideration Rs 6,206/- vide retail Invoice No-1614 dt.12.2.2011 from “ Hindustan Steel”, Gandhi Chowk, Keonjhar with a guarantee covering period of 10 years.

2. The complainant also submitted, the shop did not issue any guarantee card as per the rule and assured that the receipt’s furnishment will do the work of guarantee.

3. It is averred, post installation the tank performed well later the defect surfaced and body of the tank unable to retain the load. The defect surfaced intimated to the trader/saler and reminded the guarantee it retains.

4. The complainant further submitted, the saler of the goods “Himagiri” water tank suddenly resiled from the guarantee cover in twisting story that the dealership is no more. Thus the company is liable and the dealer has no liability to discharge.

5. The complainant was misbehaved, ill treated by the dealer and compelled to contact the manufacture over phone and whatsapp message .In response, the company verified the complained defect and assured in replacement of a new product but remain silent in wriggle out of the situation, thus institute the case against the deception, cheating and non-obligation under contract of guarantee.

6. Relied on issued invoice copy, phone No and affidavit prayed to replace the product with a new one and relief against loss, harassment and mental agony sustained as deemed fit under the law.

7. In pursuant to notice, the O.P-1 appeared and filed the written version in admission that the complainant purchased the water tank on dt 12.02.2011 with other fittings and further averred this O.P has retained the dealership for a period of about 3 to 4 years. Further asserting at present no document is available to place before this forum and no guarantee card has been issued as no instruction is given by the company.

 

8. Also contended, it reveals that the product carries no guarantee period at all. As  the complainant is brought after long lapse of time, so is not tenable in the eye of law because the lis has no cause of action, vexatious, barred of limitation thus not maintainable and attracts dismissal.

9. On notice, the O.P-2 neither appear nor made any version on his defence.

10. Heard and perused the materials on record.

 

11. On the outset perusal of record reveals one Invoice No-1614 has been issued against the consideration of Rs 6,206/-towards supply of water tank of 1000L capacity and same is admitted by the O.P-1. Thus it is not in dispute in purchase of the product against a paid consideration the complainant is a bonafide consumer and retains a right to ensue a sue.

 

12. Further we find and admitted by O.P-1 no guarantee has been issued & no instruction has been given by the company and also in admission that the O.P-1 retains the dealership for 3 to 4 years which sufficiently amplify, the product has been sold without any warranty or guarantee against the standing stipulation under Consumer Protection Act and other related laws of the land.

 

 

13. Non-issuance of any warranty or guarantee against a product is a gross violation law and admitted ignorance, so also such deliberate violation is a gross negligence and willful commission of deficiency in every score.

 

14. The contention of non-continuation of dealership does not make free from the responsibilities and obligation not to perform or discharge under the sale proceed. The trader is bound to perform and discharge the obligation under the transaction or made contract and dissuade from same implies willful negligence amounting to disregard of law. In the present case same exemplified.

 

15. Further we see the water tanks are sold in boldly written 3 years to 4 year having with 10 years warranty, In the present case which is denied by the dealer and the manufacturer being in collusion with each other. We considered the defect as surfaced after 5 years is bonafide one and the case does not entails barred of limitation covering a ten years warranty  thus maintainable.

 

16. In addition, the collusion is much more evidential that the O.P-2 is a manufacture company and process of notice is returned being note of “gate lock” is highly contended and mala fide design one. Where as same process is made Sufficient by the IIC,kuruda Police station to the Managing director, Karni Thermoplast Pvt Ltd,Balasore on dt 04.10.2017, again Prove the O.P-2 is avoiding willfully to discharge the guarantee that the product carries with, which is a unfair trade Practice to the core. Even if the process is not served then also u/s 25of the Consumer Protection Act the service of notice is sufficient without any hitch. Thus O.Ps are liable for the negligence jointly and severally under the supra observation.

 

17. In view of such findings and unimpeachable evidence the case is allowed on merit and the O.Ps are Jointly & severally liable to pay the petitioner for the deficiency committed, accordingly we ordered.

 

 

 

 

 

O-R-D-E-R

The O.Ps are directed to replace the water tank with a new one on competent specification, grade and capacity within 20 days of this order along with Rs 1000/-each as towards cost and harassment & mental agony sustained by the petitioner, in alternate each O.P has to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 4,600/-(four thousand six hundred only) within the above noted time frame along with the above noted cost, failing which Rs20/-per day penalty will accrue till complete realization.

1. Copies of the order be supplied to IIC, Kuruda Police station  Balasore, for made service to the O.P-2  at his end/return one for record.

   Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

    File be consigned to record room.

 

    Pronounced, 13^th Dec 2017

  

 I agree                                                      I agree

 

 

 

 Sri B. B Das                                                 Smt B.Giri                                         SriPurusottam Samantara

Member(m)                                               Member(w)                                               President

DCDRF,Keonjhar                                      DCDRF,Keonjhar                                   DCDRF,Konjhar

 

 

 

 

                                                                Dictated & Corrected by

 

 

 

 

                                                               (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                         (President)

                                                                  DCDRF, Keonjhar