Orissa

Rayagada

CC/234/2016

Sri Debabratha Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Godrej & Boyce MFG. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 234 / 2016.                                       Date.         23.   11   . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,                                       Member.

Smt. Padmalaya Mishra,                                  Member

Sri Debabrata Sethi,   Resident of O.M.P. road, Near Ashok Nagar,   Po/Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                             …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Manager, Godraj & Boyce MFG Co. Ltd., Appliance divison, Highway complex, N.H.-5.  Rudrapur,  Po:  Pahala,  Bhubaneswar- 752101. 

 

2. The Manager, Doordarshan Enterprises, Rayagada.

3.Sri B.K.Sahoo,In-charge, Godraj & Boyce MFG Co. Ltd Bhubaneswar.

4.The  Manager, Sital Enterprises, Ryagada.

5. The Manager, Godraj & Boyce MFG Co. Ltd.,Godrej Industries Ltd., Mumbai.

                                                                                       .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P  No.3:- In person.

For the O.P.No.1,2 & 4,5:- Set exparte.

                                                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 the sale price a sum  Rs.38,000/- towards  Air conditioner set.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

          That the complainant had purchased a Godrej Split A.C. model No. GSC 18FG   78LG from  the O.P. No.2  on Dt.20.1.2013 for an amount of Rs. 38,000/- vide retail invoice No. 25311 Dt .20.1.2013. Surprisingly the said A.C. did not function properly  and it was not giving  cool to the room from the date of  purchase.  The complainant approached the service  centre O.P. No.2 from time to time for repairing of the above A/C.  Inspite of repeated  attempts  from time to time by the O.Ps the defects  of  the  above A/C. not rectified.  Hence this case filed before the forum  and prays the forum direct the O.Ps  to refund  sale price of above A/C 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.3 appeared  in person  and took adjournments but not choose  to file written version.  The O. P. No.1,2, 4 & 5 are not appeared.  The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13 (2) (b) (ii) of the C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps. 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.

          We dispose of the above matter on  merit.

During the exparte  hearing on Dt. 06.11.2017  the complainant examined himself and proved the payment  of the  money  to the O.Ps. The complainant has also produced  the Cash memo  issued by the O.P. No.2  on Dt. 20.01.2013 bearing  bill No. 25311. The complainant also argued  due to non repair of the above set  the complainant suffered a lot.  The complainant prays the forum as the  O.Ps   not heard any  grievance of the complainant till date   so the  O.Ps.  be  directed to refund  the purchase price of the above e set  along with  bank interest.

In  the absence  of any  denial  by  way  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.Ps.   it is  presumed that the allegations  leveled against   the  O.Ps    deemed  to have  been  proved.  The complainant has produced  the  original  copies  of the Retail invoice issued by the  O.P.  Hence it is deemed that the fact is said to be   proved, and this forum  considering  the above  aspects  tendered in evidence believes  it  to exist or consider its existence so probable that under the circumstances of  particular case to act upon the  supposition that the  said  fact exist.  The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount   for the good service  as per  warranty  card  which  intended      with the O.P and the  said payment is  made for the consideration for the said service.  When the O.P has failed to  give such service  as per warranty card  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.Ps   are   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

            When   the  O.P No.2 had sold above set manufactured by the O.P. No.5  and issued  warranty card   to give service  free of cost within one year from the date of purchase  for a valuable   consideration and even  after   receipt  of the said consideration in advance,  non performance  of   the  same in spite  of   approaches from time to time    by the complainant amounts to  breach of  the  said   warranty    and further  giving false  promise  with  an intention of the  extract  money and  subsequently failed  in  giving  the  service  as  promised.

When contract  has   been  broken   or breached the complainant  who  suffers  from the said  breach is entitled   to receive  the full   amount which was paid by the complainant to the O.P. No. 2   bearing retail invoice No. 25311        Dt. 20.1.2013   with  up-to-date  bank  interest from the O.Ps  who have broken  the  contract, Compensation  for any  loss or damage caused to him  thereby,  which  naturally arose in the usual course  of things  for  such breach  or which the party  knew when they have  made the  contract ought to considered.

Hence this forum found that the complainant is  a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of contract  even after receipt of the consideration in advance for the  same on the  part  of the O.Ps are deficiency  of  service and  as such  the complainant   is  entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.

During course of hearing the complainant submitted  that due to  manufacturing defects of  unused  A/C set  the complainant purchased one new  set from the  market for daily use. The complainant prays the forum   direct the O.Ps. for refund of  purchase price of the above A/C  set.  

It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State  Commission , Chandigarh observed  the dealer is the person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality   of goods sold and in case  the consumer  had problem with the A/C. set, the dealer was under an obligation to refer the matter  to the manufacturer for necessary  relief, which  in the  instant case was  not  done.

We observed   the O.Ps   service are deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.Ps   with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers.  That due to delay, negligence and deficiency in service  by the O.Ps   the complainant   sustained mental agony, damages  etc hence the O.Ps  are liable to pay compensation  under circumstances of the case.

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

                                                            ORDER.

In the result with these observations, findings  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.Ps.

            The O.P. No.1,3,5  are ordered to take back their product and  refund price of the A/C set    a sum of Rs. 38,000.00 to the complainant  inter alia  to  pay Rs. 500/- towards  litigation  expenses.

            The O.P No.2 & 4 are directed to refer the matter  to the 1,3,5 for early compliance of the above order.

                 

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

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this  23rd. day of  November, 2017.

 

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.