Orissa

Rayagada

CC/47/2022

Bhabani Sankar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Cloudtail India Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

28 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.  E-mail-    dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

Date of Institution: 03.09.2022

      Date of Final Hearing: 24.01.2024

          Date of  Pronouncement: 28.02.2024

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.47 / 2022

Sri Bhabani   Sankar Mishra,

S/O: Sri  Trilochan  Mishra,

Raniguda  Farm, DFO office, 6^th. Lane,

 Post/Dist: Rayagada, 765 001,(Odisha)

Cell No.9437339330.

(Through Self for the Complainant)                           …Complainant

Versus.

1.The Manager,  Cloudtail India Pvt.  Ltd.,

Sy No. 475 and others, Zeromile warehousing

Park,  Pudur village, Medchal Mandal,

Hyderabad, Turkapally,  Telangana-501401 IN.

(None  for  the O.P. No.1)

 

2.The Manager, Whirlpool  House,

Plot No.40, Sector-44, Gurugram, 122002,

Haryana (India).

(Shri  Hari  Ram  Kedia, Advocate  for the O.P. No.2 ).       

3.The Manager, Sheetal Enterprises,

Gayatri  Hotel Road, New Colony,

Rayagada.

(None  for the  O.P. 3).

Opposite Parties  (O.Ps)

ORDER          U/S- 39  R/W  SECTION- 64 OF THE C.P.ACT,2019

Delivered:- Hon’ble President: Shri Rajendra  Kumar Panda

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non replacement  of  Refrigerator  with in warranty  period  which  the complainant sought  redressal.

The Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant   had purchased a  Whirlpool  355 L 3 star frost free double door  Refrigerator (IFPRO INV CNV 370 3s, Omega steel, Convertible) B08THQR382 (B08THQR382) from the O.P. bearing  Invoice  No.TG-SHYG-1004-2122  Dtd. 01.7.2021 amounting  to Rs.40,490/-.   After using the above product some months found  mechanical defect has been arise.  Immediately  the  complainant  rushed to the O.Ps  Service centre and narrated the defects of the above set.  On verifying   and inspecting the  Refrigerator the O.Ps (Service centre) made perfect running condition.  Soon after some day the same problem arise again and the complainant  has again approached the O.Ps  service  centre.  But the Service centre  has not  rectified the defects of the  Refrigerator permanently.  The complainant  had requested the  O.P.(Service Centre)  as  the above product   is covered under the warranty period   the company  will be made  perfect running  condition  without   receiving   any  amount, but the O.Ps (Service  centre) has bluntly  refused to  replace with a new one. During the warranty period the  above set was  found defective  for which  the complainant intimated the same to the O.Ps, including  the service centre under the jurisdiction  but the O.Ps has    not  given proper service for functioning of the above  set.  Due to such  negligent  service  of the service centre the  complainant  moved the matter  to the  O.Ps   for  replacement  with a  new one  or refund  of the price  of the above product.   But the O.Ps had  paid  deaf ear  to the genuine  complaint.  Hence, the complainant  finding no option  approached this Commission  to get relief   alleging  deficiency  in service  on the O.Ps  prayed  to   direct the O.Ps  to replace with  a new  one  or  refund   the  purchasing price of   Rs.40,490/- for said above set  and further  claimed  Rs.10,000/- for  physical  and mental harassment  besides  other reliefs .  To substantiate its complaint, the complainant  filed    Invoice, Warranty  card.

Upon notice, the  O.Ps appeared  and  contested the complaint , filed  written version,   invoice  dtd. 01.07.2021, warranty  terms provided   by the O.P.    to the  complainant  and evidence by way of  affidavit  on behalf  of O.Ps by raising  some  objections,  such  as the present  complaint is not  maintainable being  false and baseless.  It is  admitted  that  the O.P. No.2  is a company and O.P. No.1 is the authorisied  sales  dealer  under  O.P. No.2,  and O.P. No.3 is the  authorized  service centre  of O.P. No.2 i.e. Whirlpool India.  It is  also   admitted   by the O.Ps about the  purchase of Refrigerator set, consideration and invoice  dtd. 01.07.2021.  It is further  admitted   that the  above set   suffered  some defects and avered that the O.Ps provided  service without   any delay  and the above set  was repaired  and delivered   to the complainant.  It is  submitted that the complainant again raised  complaint but not bring  the said  set  for  inspection. Thus  there is no deficieny  in service   on the part of the O.Ps and   prayed  for dismissal  of the  complaint.

The commission heard  the  complainant  and the  counsel of the O.Ps  No.2  Sri  Hari Ram  Kedia and gone  through   the entire  record minutely.

Basing on the pleadings of the parties this commission framed the following issues for determination.

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.?
2. Whether the  services of the O.Ps are  deficient towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled  to any reliefs from the O.Ps?

Issue  No.1.

As  per  Consumer  Protection Act a person can be deemed to be a consumer  when he hires or avails   of any  services for consideration which has been  paid or  promised  to be  paid. In the instant case   there  is  no dispute  that  the  complainant  had purchased the   Refrigerator   set from the O.P.  No.1 (Retailer)  on  payment  of consideration  of   Rs.40,490/- bearing Invoice  No.SHYG-109538  Dated.  01.07.2021   issued by the O.P No.1 (Retailer) infavour of the  complainant. Therefore the complainant falls within the  definition of consumer.

In view  of the discussion above,  the  complainant  is a Consumer under the  O.Ps as envisaged  U/S-2(7)(1)  &  (ii) of C.P. Act, 2019 corresponding  to  Section of the erstwhile Act of 1986.

            Accordingly   issue No. 1  is answered.

Issue    No.2&  3 .

These  two issues invite common discussion and hence  they are being taken up together.

There is  no dispute  that there is  a warranty  of two years  and the date of expiry of warranty was Dated.01.07.2023  and the  complainant  filed the  consumer  complaint  before this  commission on Dtd.03.09.2022  i.e. within  the warranty  period.

The   O.P. has not   produced any  supporting documents as per the   reply  in respect of  prompt  service provided  by the O.Ps.  As such   in absence  of the  supporting  documents as per averment, this  commission have not taken into consideration the pleas of reply.

As  the O.P. admitted  of their reply with regard to the attendance of repair, there is  no need to further  obtain  expert  opinion for deciding   major defect   of  inherent  manufacturing  defect.

The   criteria of declaring  manufacturing defect no more rests   only expert  opinion.  Circumstances and facts of the case also play its role  in  reaching  to the  find result.  There  can not be a  mechanical  or  straight  Jacket  approach that each  and every case of  alleged  defects must be  referred  to  expert  opinion, if  decision is taken  to obtain   expert opinion in all cases  and defects is proved  on the  basis  of expert evidence, the  efficacy  of   remedy  provided   under this  Act would be  illusory.

In the medical negligence  case  also the  Hon’ble Supreme Court reverses its own  order  saying  “Expert   opinion  no more mandatory in  V.Krishna  Rao    Vrs  Nikhil  Super Speciality  Hospital  & others pronounced on Dtd. 8.3.2010.              

This Commission  perused the documents filed by the  complainant and it proves that the complainant has purchased  above    set   from the O.P. No.1(Retailer)  and after its purchase when the  above set  was found  defective  and the  O.Ps service  centre  failed  to remove the defects of the  above set. At the time of selling their products the O.Ps  ensure that  they would provide  after sale service to the  consumer,  but in this case the O.Ps sold  their product and failed to  give after sale service  which is clear deficiency  in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

            At this stage we  hold that if the  above product  require service  immediately after  its purchase then it can be presumed  that it  is  manufacturing defect and if a defective  product is supplied , the consumer is entitled to  get refund of the price of the product/article or to replace a new one  and also the consumer  is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost  to meet his mental  agony, financial  loss.           

In the instant case as it appears that the above product which was  purchased by the complainant had developed  defects immediately after its purchase and the  O.Ps were unable to restore  its normal  functioning during the warranty period.          

It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and had purchased above product  with an expectation to have the  effective  benefit  of use of the product, but in this case   the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the   article and  deprived of in using  the  above set  as  the defects were not removed  by the O.Ps.

It is pertinent to mention that relationship between the dealer, manufacturer and service  provider/care centre is  reciprocal to each other, they  are principal  to principal  and not as principal  and agent.  Hence all the  O.Ps are  liable for their own  wrongs.

Hence it is ordered.

                                    O R D E R

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

The  complaint is partly allowed   with the  direction to the O.P. No.2( the Manufacturer  Whirlpool House) to take back their product and  replace the Refrigerator with a new one with fresh warranty defect free  to the  complainant.  .  Parties are left  to bear  their own cost.

The  O.P. No. 2(Manufacturer) shall comply the  order with in  a period of 45 days   from the date  of  receipt  of this order.  

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

Pronounced in the open court of this Commission today on this 28th.. Day of    February, 2024   under   the  seal  & signature of  this Commission.

Dictated and corrected  by me.

                                                                        PRESIDENT

A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

PRONOUNCED ON  Dated.  28.02.2024