Orissa

Cuttak

CC/129/2016

Professor(Dr) Ashok Kumar Mallik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shivam Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

G Mishra

20 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                    C.C.No.129/2016

                        Professor (Dr) Ashok Kumar Mallik,

Head of the Department of Neurology,

S.C.B.Medical College,Cuttack,

S/O:Prabhakar Mallick,At:SCB Medical College Campus,

P.O/P.S:Mangalabag,Cuttack.                                       ...   Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       Shivam Electronics,Shivam Complex,Mangalabag,Cuttack

 

2.       M/s. Jagannath Service,

Authorized Service Centre of L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

At:Rajendranagar,Infront of Patanjali Chikischalaya,Cuttack-10

 

3.     Head,L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.02,1^st Floor,Bapuji Nagar,

 Bhubaneswar,Odisha

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    14.10.2016

Date of Order:  20.04.2022

 

For the complainants:   Mr.  G.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1:                       None.

For the O.P No.2           Mr. P.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3:          Mr. S.K.Mophanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

            The case record is put up today for orders.

            The case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased one Air Conditioner of L.G. bearing Model No.LSAEW5Z and Sl.no.204NAAD015008 on 23.4.2012 for a consideration of Rs.43,400/- from the showroom of O.P.No.1.  The O.P No.1 had issued retail invoice bearing No.228 dt.23.4.12 for the LG LSAJEW57 but after somedays of purchase, there was technical problem in the said Air Conditioner which was purchased on 15.7.2012 and it was reported to O.P No.1 as because it was within the warranty period.  After repeated visits by the complainant to O.Ps No.1 & 2, ultimately the O.P.No.2 has sent a mechanic to the residence of the complainant.  The said mechanic had taken away the indoor unit of the A.C split machine with job sheet bearing No.RNA/140508098789 and job Sl. No.204MARV018542 pertaining to model No.LSA5EW5Z.  The said agent had assured for a complete exchange of the said A.C to the complainant. But the said A.C machine was not replaced.  Rather, the O.Ps have taken a sum of Rs.4000/- towards other charges along with service charge of Rs.450/- from the complainant.  The O.P.No.2 had taken a letter from the complainant for replacement of the defective Air Conditioner and for refund of an amount of Rs.43,400/- in the alternative, but the said amount is yet to be refunded or the A.C was replaced.  Subsequently one agent of O.P No.3 namely NIlamadhab Rath went to the complainant and assured about refund of the money but to the dismay of the complainant neither the A.C was replaced nor the money spent by him towards the purchase of the A.C was reimbursed to him.  It is for this, the complainant has filed this case claiming a sum of Rs.43,400/- towards the price of the A.C along with compensation of Rs.32,000/-.  To support his claim the complainant has filed all the relevant documents including money receipts etc.

2.         Out of three O.Ps, in this case O.P.No.1 has not contested for which O.P.No.1 has been set exparte vide order dt.5.2.2019.  However, the other two O.Ps have contested this case and filed their respective written versions.  According to the written version of O.P.2, this complaint petition as filed is not maintainable.  Of course, O.P.No.2 admits about the purchase of the A.C. of L.G make by the complainant, about receiving the complaint, about sending mechanic for checking the Air Conditioner machine.  O.P.No.2 has expressed his inability to produce the jobsheet because of the unilateral withdrawal of legal authorisation by the company from O.P.No.2 vide letter dt.31.12.2015.  According to O.P No.2 all the relevant documents were handed over to the company which is O.P.No.3.  O.P No.2 has stated to have informed about such matters as complained by the complainant; to the O.P No.3 and so also indoor unit of the split A.C of the complainant was given to O.P No.3 for which O.P No.2 now is not in a position to return the spilt A.C  indoor unit of the complainant.  O.P No.2 urges that the complainant is bound to pay the service charges as it is the mandate of the company rules and the said charges collected from the consumers were being deposited in the account of the L.G.Company who is O.P.No.3 in this case.  Quite interestingly, O.P No.2 admits in his written version that the demand of the complainant made to him is purely genuine but has prayed to drop the proceeding against him only.

3.         On the other hand, O.P No.3 in his written version has stated that the complainant is not entitled to any claim or relief as claimed by him.  The complaint petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limini.  According to O.P No3, O.P No.1 is the dealer, O.P No.2 is the authorised service centre whereas O.P No.3 is the manufacturer of the product and each of them have their own style of business.  According to O.P No.3, the Air Conditioner of L.G. make provides warranty for 1 year excluding plastic items therein and so also excluding certain other items as mentioned in the warranty card.  The O.P No.3 in his written version has further urged that the case is barred by law of limitation and liable to be dismissed being filed long after the expiry of the warranty period.  The O.P No.3 has further averred that there was no deficiency in service and all the allegations being frivolous, misconceived, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4.         Keeping in mind the averments as made by the two O.Ps contesting this case as reflected in their written versions as well as the contents of the complaint petition, it is felt proper by this Commission for settling the following issues;

            i.          Whether the complaint case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?

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

Issues No.1 & 2

For the sake of convenience issues No.1 & 2 are taken up together in this case.  It is the consistent plea of O.P No.3 that the complaint petition being filed well after the expiry of the warranty period is barred by law of limitation.  When it is admitted fact that the split A.C of L,.G. make was purchased by the complainant from O.P No.1 was found to be defective, he had lodged complaint before the O.Ps and agent of O.P No.2 had taken away the indoor unit of split A.C machine and the said statement remains undisputed.  In such circumstances, the contention raised by O.P No.3 that the complaint petition is filed after the expiry of the warranty period does not hold good.  It is because, when the said purchased A.C. machine was found to be defective and was not repaired promptly, this Commission can never come to a conclusion that the case of the complainant is barred by law of limitation.  Moreso, when it is noticed that the complainant is a bonafide consumer who had paid the consideration amount for the A.C. machine and had also paid the other charges and service charges subsequently, the complaint is definitely maintainable and accordingly both the issues are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.

 

Issue No.3

            O.P.No.2 has admitted that the claim of the complainant was genuine but O.P.No.2 as it seems has tried to escape the liability by diverting the attention towards O.P No.3.  O.P No.1 has not contested this case.  As such, this Commission thinks it proper that the claim as made by the complainant is definitely genuine and all the three O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the latches caused.  Hence ordered;

                                                           ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.P. No.2 & 3 and exparte against O.P No.1.  The O.Ps are hereby directed to return the price of Rs.43,400/- to the complainant forthwith along with interest @ 12% per annum till final payment is made jointly and severally.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.32,000/- as made by the complainant towards harassment caused to him along with litigation fees jointly and severally. 

The order be complied within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 20^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President

.                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.