Orissa

Rayagada

CC/195/2016

Smt. Madhumita Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Godrej Industirs Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 195/ 2016.                                        Date.    1`9   .    3    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                                      Member.

Smt. Padmalaya Mishra,.                                                              Member

 

Smt. Madhumita Mohanty, Sr. Civil Judge, Po:Gunupur,  Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                   …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Manager, Godrej Industries Ltd., Pirosahanagafr, Eastern Express, High way, Vikhoroli, Mumbai, Pin No. 400079, India.
2. The Manager, Sheetal Enterprises, Near Over bridge, Rayagada(Odiaha).
3. The Marketing Manager, Godrej & Boyce Manufacture  Co. Ltd., Appliance Division, Highway  Complex, NH-5, Rudrapur, Bhubaneswar,752 101.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P No.1 & 2:- Set exparte.

For the O.P. No.3:-  In person.

JUDGMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non replacement  of Air Conditioner  after warranty period.

 

On being noticed  the O.P No. 1 & 2   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  18 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps 1 & 2.  Observing lapses of around 2 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps 1 & 2. The action of the O.Ps 1 & 2  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps 1 & 2 . set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

On being noticed the O.P. No.3  filed  written version through their Assistant Manager, Administration   and refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.P No.3  taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No.3. Hence the O.P No. 3    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.P No.3  appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.P No.3  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments  & vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is not disputed the complainant had purchased the Air Conditioner in the year 2008  ( Copies of the Retail invoice  No. PEC/CREDIT/379 Dt. 8.5.2008 marked as Annexure-I) which is available in  the file.  The complainant  had admitted  in her petition  para No. 1 that  there was not all any problem in the Air Conditioner till March, 2016.  

The O.P. No.3  in their written version para-2  contended that the above set was carrying warranty for one  year  from the date of sale on the entire set and additional 4 years warranty  only on compressor.  Accordingly the warranty of above set had expired  in the year 2013.

 

  The O.P. No.3  in their written version para-3  contended that even after expiry of the warranty,  the above set  was running without any problem till  2016  as admitted by the complainant in her complaint petition para No.1. The above set   had  showed  problems in March, 2016 and accordingly on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant , in turn the  technician visited on Dt. 1.4.2016 and repaired the above set with Gas charging on payment of Rs. 2,300/-. After repair  the above A/C. ran well for 2 days  as admitted by the complainant in her petition.

The  O.P. No.3 in their written version para-4  contended that it is important to mention here that the compressor is an electrical component and the compressor went out of order after running successfully for 2 days.  Accordingly the O.P. No.3 was given an estimate for Rs.8,000/- to replace the compressor.  The problem of compressor is nothing to do with gas charging.  As the compressor was more than 8 years old. It went out of order.

 

The  O.P. No.3 in their written version para-5  contended that as the complainant did not pay the estimated amount of Rs.8,000/-, the replacement of compressor could not take place. The complainant being aggrieved has filed  C.C. case before this hon’ble forum for extracting undue advantage.

The  O.P. No.3 in their written version para-6  contended that as the compressor and the A.C. is out of warranty and 8 years old long product, the complainant is required to pay necessary charges for replacing the compressor.

The  O.P. No.3 in their written version para-6  admitted that as a matter of goodwill gesture, the O.P. offers to replace the compressor free of cost, but the complainant is not willing to allow the O.P. to under take that work  to bring back the A.C.  working condition.

On perusal of the record  this forum observed there is no warranty so that this forum can not pass order to replace the above set free of cost.

On perusal of the  complaint petition and written version filed by the parties  this forum agreed with the views taken by the  O.P No.3    in their written version and documents  filed in support of this case.   The present case  in hand as the warranty expired the  complainant   is not entitled  to  replace with a new  one A/C free  of cost. .

Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is not entitled  to  replace with a new  one A/C set free  of cost. .

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

ORDER.

In resultant the  petition filed by the complainant stands allowed in part on contest.  There is  no order as to cost.

The complainant is directed to allow the O.Ps  to replace  the compressor free  of cost to bring back the A/C to working condition for the best interest of justice.   The O.P. No.3 is ordered to comply the order with in  30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on  this                19th. day  of        March, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.