Orissa

Rayagada

CC/129/2017

Sri Santosh Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Doordarshan - Opp.Party(s)

Self

28 Aug 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.        129        / 2017.                            Date.  28    .  8  . 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,                                                   Member.

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,.                                             Member

 

Sri  Santosh Mohapatra, Near Jagannath Complex, Collectorate Road, Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha).      Cell No. 7978076647.…. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Doordarshan Digital Shoppe, Beside over bridge, Station  Road,  Po/Dist: Rayagada  (Odisha).

2.The Manager,  M/S. Samsung  India  Electronics Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at A-25, Ground floor, front tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial  Estate, New Delhi- 110044.                                … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P. No.1:-  Self.

For the O.P No. 2.  :- Sri  K .C. Mohapatra, Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  price  towards  Samsung  Micro oven which was  not functioning within the warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

                That  the complainant  had purchased  a Samsung  MO 28H5025VS   Micro Oven  from the O.P. No.1 on Dt.12.10.2016  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.14,500/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period  vide Retail invoice No.44522 Dt. 12.10.2016.  The  above set   found defective  within the warranty  period. The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps from time to time, but  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Though he has given the service, but the same trouble continued.   Now the above set is unused.  The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps. Inspite of repeated  attempt  by the O.Ps  for rectification  of the defects but the same trouble continued .   Now the above set is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this complaint petition  filed by the complainant and prays the forum direct the O.Ps to refund  purchase  price of the above Micro Oven  and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

             On being noticed the O.P. No.1 filed written version refuting the allegation made by  the complainant  in their complaint petition. The complainant itself being  untenable, not maintainable  and is beyond the jurisdiction  of the Consumer Forum and is liable to be dismissed.  The O.P.  No. 1     prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice

On being noticed  the learned counsel for the O.P No. 2   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.P No. 2    deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.P  No. 2  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.P.  No. 2     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.P No.2  and from the  O.P. No.1  inter alia 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 Samsung  MO 28H5025VS   Micro Oven  from the O.P. No.1 on Dt.12.10.2016  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.14,500/- (Copies of the  bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period  vide Retail invoice No. 44522 Dt. 12.10.2016.  The  above set   found defective  within the warranty  period. The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps.. Inspite of repeated  attempt  by the O.Ps  for rectification  of the defects but the same trouble continued.  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.P. No.2  in  their written version contended that  the complainant had not  approached the O.P. NO.2 for the defect or the defect could not removed from his alleged  Microwave Oven  and also if the O.P. No.2 has no knowledge regarding any allegation of defect  of the alleged  set prior  to filing  of this case, then how the cause of action will arise against the O.P. No.2 on absent of knowledge  about any defect of the alleged set.  Further if the complainant fails to produce  any evidence regarding  he has approached to the O.P. No.2(Manufacturer) about non rectification  of the defect from the alleged  set prior to filling this case before forum, then how this complaint  will stand  against  the O.P.No.2  ?   The complainant has not come with clean hands before this forum.   The complainant has not mentioned any date on which day defect persisted in his set and no where he had stated  that on which day & on which way  informed either the O.P. No.2   or the service centre, Rayagada about  non rectification of the defect   from his alleged set.  Also the complainant has no where alleged   that the  Service centre, Rayagada has committed the deficiency in service because the O.Ps are not  the service provider.

The O.P. No. 2   cited citation  in their written version    in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga  Vrs.  KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 1999(3) CPJ- 28 (SC), it was  held that the burden of proving  the  deficiency in service  is upon the   person who alleges it.  In case of   bona  fide    disputes to willful fault,  imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality,  nature or manner of performance in the service can be informed. If on facts it is  found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all  precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the  course of the transaction and that their  action or the final decision was  in good faith, it can not be said that there  had been any deficiency in service in the case in hand the complainant has failed to prove any  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Further  the O.P. No. 2   cited citation  in their written version    in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vrs. Susheel  Kumar Gabgotra and others (AIR-2006)S.C 1586 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “Warranty conditions clearly refers to replacement of defective part not the  car – Not a case of silence of a contract of sale to warranty”. The O.P. No. 2  vehemently contended that in this case there is no defect in the  above set of the complainant, but the complainant has filed this fabricated complaint only to  tarnish the reputation of the O.P No.2   and to secure the unlawful gains from the O.Ps.

 

On perusal of the  record this forum found the O.P. No.2  has not disputed  regarding purchase  of  Micro Oven  from the O.P. No.1  on Dt. 12.10.2016  by the complainant  with  warranty of one year from the date of purchase.  The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2  vehemently  argued  the complainant has miserably failed to prove the  defective of the above set  by filing documents  to substantiate  the  above case.   Again  the O.P. No.2  contended  that  it is not possibly to believe the facts of complaint  on simple submission of the  complainant.

The Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for the protection and preservation of the right of the consumers. Interpretation of the provisions of the said Act should therefore be made by keeping in mind the reliefs and remedies how far could be  made available to the consumers in the event of any unfair trade practice adopted by the trader or if thereby any deficiency in service by the service provider.  The object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide speedy and inexpensive remedy to the consumers as an alternative to the remedy already available to them by way of institution of a suit in the appropriate Civil Court. If such be the purpose then how a consumer like the present  one  who residing  at  Rayagada  would have  speedy and inexpensive remedy against deficiency in service by  the opposite party  who resides at New Delhi.

It is the case of the complainant that  since the date  of purchase of Micro Oven  the   defects occurred  for which he could not run the above  set  and in spite of repeated requests  the O.Ps  remained silent and did not take any steps to remove the defects. After going through the version and documents filed by the opposite party, we also  believed the contention of the complainant  as because  the opposite party has strongly opposed regarding after sale service of the machine . It is contended by the opposite party that after delivery of the machine they are not responsible for any damage, breakage or different qualities. But we totally denied their contentions and as per Sale of Goods Act, the seller  is bound to provide after sale service till the warranty is over and they cannot deny and think  that after sale of the product/goods their job is over. It is their sole responsibility to give after sale service as per the warranty/guarranty  and if there is any manufacturing defects they are bound to replace it or refund the purchase amount. In the instant case, the above set  supplied by the Opp.Party is a defective one and when defect occurred in the machine the opposite party  did not attended  the complainant to remove the defects and remained silent and thought that as per their term and conditions printed in the tax invoice  they are not liable for any defect or qualities of the product as they have made the law for their Company. It is very strange that how the opposite party Company can  thought  that a customer who has purchased a machine/product  which is worth of Rs.15,000/- will bear the loss if the same will found defective if they will not provide any service, from which it is established that it is the attitude of the O.Ps to cheat after selling a defective product to the customer like complainant and tried to run away from their responsibilities. Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts and findings of the case, it is clear that  the opposite parties has supplied a defective  set  to the complainant  for which the complainant  sustained  financial loss and suffered mental agony .

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.

As per our above discussion, it is concluded  that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .  Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service 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”.   Since the date of purchase , the above set  found defective and  could run properly  for which complainant  requested the opposite party over telephone  but the  O.P No.2 failed to  remove the defects , which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.2.  Therefore, the O.P No.2 is  liable to refund the amount of the above set.

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

                                                                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on contest against the O.Ps.

The O.P No.2 (Manufacturer)  is  directed to refund  the  purchase price of the  Micro Oven  a sum of Rs.14,500/- to the complainant.

           There is no order as to cost and compensation.

          The  O.P.  No.1 is directed to refer the matter to the  O.P.No.2 for early compliance of the above order.

                The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

                Dictated and  corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open forum on               28 ^th.         day of    August, 2020.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT