Orissa

Rayagada

CC/50/2018

Kishore Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA, Pin No. 765 001.

 

C.C. Case  No.       50/ 2018.                                         Date.  15        4.2019.

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                          Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Kishore  Kumar Sahu, S/O: Sri SimadriSahu, TrinathMandir lane, Raniguda Farm,   Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765 001,  Cell No.8270771329.                                                                            …. Complainant.

Versus.

1. The Manager, Godrej Industries Ltd., Pirosahanagafr, Eastern Express, High way, Vikhoroli, Mumbai, Pin No. 400079, India.

2.The Marketing Manager, Godrej & Boyce Manufacture  Co. Ltd., Appliance Division, Highway  Complex, NH-5, Rudrapur, Bhubaneswar,752 101.

3. The Manager, Doordarsan Digital Shoppe, Besides Over bridge,StationRoad,Po/Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).       … Opposite parties.

 

                                   

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps 1 & 2 :- Sri Bijaya  Kumar Sahoo, Assistant Manager of Godrej Co.

For the O.P  No. 3:- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund  of Washing machine price which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief facts of the case are  summarized here under.

That  the complainant had purchased  WT600 C(GODREJ W Machine   from the O.P. No.3 on Dt.13.07.2015  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.12,500/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  5(five) years warranty period .The above set   found defective  within the warranty  period. During the year 2018 the above set found defect and not in working condition. The complainant feel there is manufacturing defect in the set.   The complainant complained the matter to the  Service centre  cell No.  9437448100  and land line  No. 06856-222828.  Inspite of repeated  contact the service centre refused to rectify or replace the same.   Now the above set is unused.  But  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum  direct the O.Ps to  refund purchase price of the WT600 C(GODREJ W Machine      a  sum of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant  & such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps No.1 & 2  put in their appearance and filed written version through their Assistant Manager in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps No. 1 & 2  taking one and another 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.1 & 2 . Hence the O.P No.1 & 2   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being Noticed, the O.P No.  3  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version in spite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.  3.  Observing lapses of around 1(One) year  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.P No. 3. The action of the O.P No. 3   are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P  No.  3 are  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.

Heard arguments from the learned authorised agents  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.

There  is no dispute that   the  complainant had purchased  WT600 C(GODREJ W Machine   from the O.P. No.3 on Dt.13.07.2015  on  payment  of amount a sum of Rs.12,500/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  warranty. (copies of the  Retail invoice No. 39661  Dt.13.07.2015    inter  alia    warranty  (copies of the  invoice  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I ).

The main grievances of the complainant is that due to non  rectification of the defects in the   above  set perfectly  within warranty period     he wants  refund  of purchase  price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

The O.Ps 1 & 2  in their written version contended that the complainant has not followed proper procedure to lodge a complaint for  his service requirement, the allegation made  by him   in his petition that the O.Ps have failed to replace  or repair the washing machine,  without supported by any documentary evidence, hence  illegal and against the principle of natural justice.  Further the company is under obligation to provide after-sale-srevice to its products within  the warranty period and   for any  defect in washing machine in this case. The complainant should   avail  the required service  by proper procedure and not by adopting undesirable process.  The O.Ps  No.1 & 2 prays the forum  direct the complainant to allow the O.Ps  for initiating necessary repair within the terms of warranty and after submission of report of repair by the O.Ps  pass  an order to close the present case proceeding without  any cost or compensation.

                  Admittedly the  purchase of the Washing  machine  of Godrej  Company  by the complainant is not denied.  The O.Ps have given an undertaking that they are  ready to  give the free  service as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said  set.  The complainant submitted that  as  per the  warranty condition  he approached  from pillar to post but the complainant  not get any  fruitful  result  till  date from any of  the  O.Ps.

                           It is well settled principle of law that  no consumer will make any such complaint if there is no such deficiency. Hence the action of the O.Ps for not giving the required service  to the complainant is a deficiency in service  on the part of the O.Ps.

                            Further it is observed that the complainant is deprived of enjoyment of the above set for such a long time and caused mental torture and harassment to the complainant.  Further more  the  washing machine  is highly essential  for the  complainant. 

                           Now we have to see whether there was any negligence on the part of the O.Ps in treating the complainant as alleged?   We perused  the papers filed by the complainant for replacement of new  non automatic washing machine   set from the very beginning.   Inspite of  services  given by the O.Ps the defects of the  above set of the complainant   persists  and  could not be rectified   by the service centre of the O.Ps.  We hold at this stage if the above set  required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it is defective. If a defective set is supplied  a consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new set and also the consumer concerned  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 set which was purchased  by the complainant  had developed defects and the O.Ps engineers are   repeatedly attempts  to restore  its regular functioning  but  not made perfect running condition    of the above set till  date.

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

                                                                       

                                                     

                                                                        ORDER.

            In  resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps. 

           

The O.P No.1 & 2  (Manufacturer)   is ordered to replace the  WT600 C(GODREJ W Machine  purchased by the complainant   with a new defect free set  of  non automatic washing machine   without charging any extra price or to refund  the price of the  washing machine  set a sum of  Rs.12,500.00  to the complainant..  Parties  are left to bear  their own cost.

 

The O.P. No. 3  is ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2 & 3 for early compliance of the above order.

 

 

            The O.Ps  are  ordered to comply the above direction within 45 from the date of receipt of this order.     Service the copies of the order to the parties.

 

Dictated  and  corrected  by  me.

Pronounced on this               15^th.     Day    of       April,   2019.

 

 

                Member                                                 Member.                                                                President

 

 

 

 

 

-