Orissa

Rayagada

CC/329/2016

Kirti Chandra Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Deputy Manager, Industrial Service Crompton - Opp.Party(s)

Self

04 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 329 / 2016.                                                       Date.    4     .     8  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri  Kirti  Chandra  Sahu,  Indira Nagar, 4^th. Lane,  Po/ Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                                                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Deputy  Manager,Industrial  Service, Crompton Greaves Ltd., Bhubaneswar- 751009.

2.The Manager,  Jagat Janani  Enterprises, At/Po: Jeypore, Dist:Koraput.    .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri D.Ravi  Prasad, Advocate.

JUDGEMENT

          The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for   non  rectification defects of  Crompton Greaves  Mini Water pump 1 H.P.  for which  the complainant  sought compensation  inter alia  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the learned counsel for the O.Ps  filed written version inter alia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking one  & other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

 

The O.Ps appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.Ps 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.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a  Crompton Greaves 1  H.P. Mini Water pump from the D.C. Sanitations, Rayagada  by paying a sum of Rs. 7,100/-  with cash/credit bill No. 6082 Dt.16.11.2013   with  one year warranty. (Copies of the  bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after  some  months  of its purchase  the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant made correspondence to the O.P. No.1 through E-Mail  on Dt. 4.7.2016  mentioning non working of above pump satisfactory  (Copies of the E-Mail is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).  Due to  non satisfied  with the above repair again the complainant complained the O.P No. 1  on Dt.3.10.2016  through E-Mail  mentioning need urgent service. (Copies of the E-Mail is in the file which is marked as Annexure-3).  Even such service the above problems persisting in the above set and being asked  O.Ps authorized person advised to move the matter to the company  for better service, but the manufacturing company had paid deaf ear to the genuine complaint.  Hence the above C.C. case.

The O.Ps   in  their written version  has not disputed towards purchase of  above set.

             The O.Ps.   in their written version para No. 2 contended that  as per the consumer complaint immediately our field experts inspected his premises and removed  the defects and there is no such problem as far as machinery is concerned and it is  OK.

                The O.Ps.   in their written version para No. 3 contended that  when repeatedly he has started complaining it was checked throughly   and all the defects  were removed  to his satisfaction and now his complaint is that the motor is not  able to pump water to his 1000 Litres  tank  and though the pump is working.

            The O.Ps.   in their written version para No. 4 contended that  after getting his complaint we have  personally gone and checked the pump and it is found O.K. But  three  is  leakage in his pipe connections some where in between the motor pump and the water tank and we have asked him to check the same through  a plumber and he has  not done so.

                The O.Ps.   in their written version para No. 5 contended that  the  fault   is with the pipe line  which is old and having  some air leakage for which  the motor fitted to the said pipe is not able to catch the water and as such we have  advised the complainant to get it done to remove the defect.

            The O.Ps.   in their written version para No. 6 contended that  the  product is sold in the year 2013 and its  warranty period  expires after one year and the services given after such warranty   period is to be borne by the complainant. For all the services so far done  after the  warranty he has not paid any service charges  and the   warranty  period was  expired   16.11.2014, and he has to file the complaint petition with in the said period and as such it is a time barred complaint as per section 24(1) of the C.P.Act   and as such    it is to be dismissed at the very date of filing.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No. 7 contended that  there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the O.Ps and they have  acted deligently and  given the  services  promptly in order to protect  the Good will of the product and the company in the market and due to the own fault of the complainant he is facing the trouble and he is prepared to  rectify the  defect or remove the pipe having leakage  in it   and un-necessarily blaming the O.Ps  and its reputation.

This forum completely agreed with views taken  and the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled for  any  relief sought for  from this forum and  shall   liable to be dismissed.

 However the O.Ps are directed to rectify the defects  of the above set   if the complainant  approached. to the O.Ps  to remove the defect of his set  and shall provide all sort of after sale service to the complainant on completion of warranty period subject to receipt of defective  parts  price only.

The complainant  also directed to carry out the instructions of the  O.Ps to check the fault  of the connected pipe line for air leakage  between the Motor and pipe. There is no defects in the Motor pump & O.Ps provide proper service  to the complainant  as per his demand.

As thus, it  becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is  not entitled to  any claim.

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

                                                                        O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  disposed off on contest against the O.Ps.

            There is  no order as to cost and compensation.

Dictated and corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on            4th.       day  of    August, 2018.

 

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT