Orissa

Rayagada

CC/91/2017

Sri Rajendra Kumar Choudhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Great Eastern Appliances Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

15 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 91 / 2017.                                           

P R E S E N T .

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            President-In-Charge.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Rajendra  Kumar Choudhury, DFO office  4^th. Lane, Susbash  Nagar,   Po/Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).Cell No.7008396668                                      

…. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., 22 & 22B,  Bapuji Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751 009.

2.The Manager,Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,  Mathura Road,  New Delhi-110044.     

3.The Manager, Sony Service  Centre, R.N.Electronics, Gandhi Nagar, Main Road, Behind Paramajyoti  Theatre,  Berhmapur- 760001.                                    .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri R.K.Saranti and Sri R.K.Senapati,Advocates.

JUDGEMENT

          The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for   non  replacement of T.V. set  LED  32” with a new one  within warranty period  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. 1 to 3  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  Sony KLV -32R302D  having   Sl. No.4577990 from the O.P. No.1    by paying a sum of Rs. 24,961/-  with cash/credit bill No. 658 Dt.08.08.2016   with  one year warranty. (Copies of the  bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after  10   months  of its purchase  the above  set found defective and not functioning. The complainant complained the O.Ps Service centre, for necessary repair  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 either for replacement or refund  of the price, 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 the present complaint is not maintainable at all as there is no single proof against the O.Ps  which says that the  LED was ever brought to any of the authorized service centre of  O.P.  No.2 or it has  any inherent    defect/  Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reason that in the absence of any service  history or any kind of detail available with the O.Ps, no cause of action  arises  to entertain the present case.

            The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.03  contended  that  after enjoying the said  LED for almost 10 months, the complainant lodged a complaint that on 10.6.2017 the LED got burnt  and turned into ashes on its own. The service engineer without any delay visited  the residence of the complainant and inquired  about the incidence from the complainant. The complainant told the service engineer that the LED got burnt on its own  and turned  into ashes.  At the same time the complainant also told that there was a candle which fell on the LED but the  complainant has not mentioned this fact in the present complaint. However, the said  fact was told only to  the  service engineer.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.04  contended  that  the service engineer has  thoroughly inspected  the place where the LED was installed and observed  that there was  no  burning from any power point and nor there was any spot   found which  establishes the fact that the  burnt was  caused on its own.  As  per the  Service Engineer, the LED got burnt due to the falling of candle on it  or can say due to external cause. The LED caught fire from  external source like burning  candle  or cloth etc.   It is not at all possible that the LED could have burnt into ashes due to some  inherent defect.  The  LED  undergone  very stringent quality and safety   tests and it is not possible that it can burn into ashes so easily.  

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.5 contended that  no material evidence has been placed on record by the  complainant which says that the LED was having any inherent defect. The entire complaint is on the bass of false allegations    and without  any documentary evidence. In the absence of any strong proof, the present complaint is liable to   be  dismissed.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.09  contended  that  in view of the above facts it can not be said that there was “Deficiency in service” in relatin to the subjected LED. When timely action has been taken by the O.P.NO.2 to diagnose the issue  pertaining to the LED and the complainant was duly attended by O.P. No.2 in such circumstances the question of deficiency does not arise.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.10 contended that  the factum of the present case is very well covered by the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vrs. Pratap 1997 (2) CPJ -81  where in it was held that where the complaints of the complainant were  duly and promptly attended by the O.P. and no reliable evidence was produced by the complainant in support of his case that he suffered a loss due to inconvenience caused to him, the complainant in that case is not entitled to any relief.In the present matter the O.P’s have duly  attended the complaints of the complainant and have therefore never been deficient in providing the services to the complainant.

The O.Ps.   in their written version para No.11 contended inter alia relied citation in the matter of Sabeena Cycle Emporium  Chennakhaada Vrs. Thaies Ravi M.R. Pancha Villa Vedar Ezkhone P.O. 1992 (1) CPJ -97 where in the Hon’ble  Kerela  State Commission  observed  that where the complainant alleges defecs in the goods, the forum is bound to determine this fact on the  basis of clear evidence by way of expect opinion. The aforesaid proposition of law has also been  reaffirmed by the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal in the case of Keshab Ram Mahto Vrs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd  Anr. 2003(2) CPJ-244.

                On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the sole question of determination is  Whether  the complainant is entitled  relief    made by him ?

For better appreciation  this forum  relied citations  which are mentioned here under:-

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case  2005  Page No. 527 (NS) in the case of Meera&Co Ltd. Vrs. Chinar  Syntex Ltd  where in the Hon’ble National Commission  observed “Consumer-    Generating set purchased -  defects developed  during  warranty  period - repairs done on payment - dealer can not be absolved from his liability   because manufacturer has not  been impleaded- dealer deficient in service- order  to dealer   refund   amount with interest to the complainant.”

Again It is held and reported  in CTJ-2005, Page No. 1208 where in  the hon’ble  National Commission   observed  “Both the dealer & manufacturer of the  product having defects  in it, are jointly and severally liable to the  purchaser, because he knows only the dealer from whom he purchased that  product and not its manufacturer”. 

 

Further   It is held and reported in CPR- 2009 (2) Page No. 42  where in  the Himachal Pradesh  State Commission  observed “ we may mention here that it is by now well settled that the C.P. Act, 1986 is a welfare  legislation  meant to give  speedy  in expensive and timely justice to the parties. Similarly it is also well know that where  two views are possible, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed.”

           

            Again it  is  held and  reported in  Consumer Law today 2014(1) page No. 153 where in the  Hon’ble  Goa State Commission observed “The tax invoice duly   signed by dealer can be considered to be an agreement between the parties subject to which the   sale was   made to the  consumer – liability for defect in article sold both the dealer and manufacturer  are jointly and severally. 

 

We are of the opinion that the case  is relating to defective goods  which is covered under section 2(i)(f) of the C.P. Act. The C.P. Act  which provides that  “Defective means any fault, in imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity are standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force”.                                                                  After amendment made by  the C.P. Act   of 2002 wherein it  is made clear that when a complainant  is using the above product of    manufacturing company   purchased from the  present  O.P.  is also coming within the definition of consumer and the service provided  or attached to the said  goods in the shape of warranty or guarantee is also available to the users.

Since the  above  goods     was sold by the   O.P, it can not evade  liability  for repair/replacement of spare parts on the ground of manufacturer of the  above goods  with whom the  complainant did not have any privity of contract , having  not been impleaded as party to the complaint  or service was to  be  affected. Further the complainant  will be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986.

            Further no trader or  manufacturer can escape from its liability of selling defective goods much less the defects that are manufacturing and irreparable. In the instant case  the consumer has been left high and dry due to the defective   set  and faulty workmanship  used at the time of manufacturing the above  set. It was with an object to protect the interest of the consumer  and curb  the tendencies of unscrupulous manufacturers and dealers who care  for the quality or  standard which is required to be maintained in relation to the goods  the Consumer  Protection Act was brought on the  statute book and  by virtue of provisions of Section -14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 the Consumer Fora  has the power to direct the dealer to do one or more of the following things, namely:-

                        Sec.14( c) : to return the complainant the price, or as                                               the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant ,

                         (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by its  as                                              compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury                                                suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of    the  opposite party; 

            The 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 and  the term ‘ deficiency in service ‘  as per Section 2(1)(g) 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.           

            In the present case in hand    the defects therein developed  within warranty period of one year. For the best interest of justice in our opinion the O.Ps. should  replace   with a new  one defect free which  is  lying  at complainant premises.

Further we observed the O.Ps are not rendering proper service to the complainant establishes their callousness and whimsical attitude. The  forum feel that the O.Ps services are deteriorating and does not follows   ethics.  Due to the same attitude  the complainant deprived of  to get the good service during warranty period. Further the O.Ps neither proved nor established the defect caused due to physical   damage not for manufactured defect.

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 the 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  Opposite Party  No.2 (Manufacturer)   is      directed to  replace the Sony LED      with a new one  set  defect free  with fresh  warranty   to the complainant.  No cost.

The O.P. No.1 & 2  are 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       15^th.        day  of       October,  2020. 

 

                                    Member.                                          President-In-Charge.