Orissa

Rayagada

CC/28/2018

Lalit Kumar Barik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Taratarin Collection - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Aug 2020

ORDER

                      v

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                      PO/DIST; RAYAGADA,   STATE:  ODISHA ,Pin No. 765001

C.C. Case  No.   28 / 2018.                             Date.   27. 8 . 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                                  President

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                                    Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                              Member

 

Sri Lalit Kumar  Barik, Guard colony, Po/ Dist: .Rayagada,  State:  Odisha.  Pin No. 765 001.                                                                      …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The   Manager, Taratarini Collection, Near Sarala Junction,  Po/  Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).

2.The Manager, Service  centre,  Po/  Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).

3. The  Manager, Samsung  India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, A-25, Ground Floor, New Delhi- 110044.                                               .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1   :- Set exparte.

For the O.P.No.2 & 3:- Sri  K.C.Mohapatra, Advocate, BBSR.                                                                                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund of price of the Samsung mobile  set a sum of Rs.13,900/- towards found defective during warranty period     for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case are summarized here under.

The complainant had  purchased  the  Samsung Galaxy J-5 Prime   mobile  from  the Samsung Galaxy J-5 Prime   mobile  O.P. No. 1  on payment of consideration   a sum   for Rs.13,900/- to the  O.P. No.1 bearing  IMEI No.358213/08/371964/8 vide  Invoice  No. 3114 Dt.28.8.2017.   The above set becomes  found defunct after lapse of  four months. The  above set  started several  problems like Auto switch and hand at any time.   The  complainant  in their petition  mentioned that  he had   complained   to the  O.P. No.2`(Service centre of the O.P. No.3)  regarding  defective  of the  above set  in turn  the O.P. No.2 attended  for service .    Inspite of repairing the set  it is not at all in working  condition. So the  complainant  had requested    the O.P. No.2 & 3   to replace or refund purchase  price of the above set but the O.P. No.2 & 3      turned deaf ear. Hence this C.C. case.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.  1   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite 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. 1 .  Observing lapses of around 2years  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  from  the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P 1. The action of the O.P No. 1  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.  1  was 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.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No. 2 & 3   put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No. 2 & 3   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. 2 & 3 .   Hence the O.P  No.  2 &  3  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the complainant      and from the O.P No.2 & 3.    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  the  Samsung Galaxy J-5 Prime   mobile  mobile  from  the O.P. No. 1  on payment of consideration   a sum   for Rs.13,900/- to the  O.P. No.1 bearing    IMEI No.358213/08/371964/8 vide  Invoice  No. 3114 Dt.28.8.2017 (copies of the  Retail 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  above  set perfectly  he wants  refund  of price of the above set. Hence  this  C.C. case.

                The O.P. No.2 & 3 in their written version contended that  there is no defect which can not be removed  by the  service personnel of the  O.P. No.3. As such   all   defects  must be removed   only by replacing   the defective  spare from   the defective unit.   Hence there is no chance of non rectification of any defect, if new spare is available before them  against the defective spares. The complainant has not come with clean  hand  before the forum.  The complainant had purchased the said set on Dt.28.8.2017 from the  O.P. No.1 with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase.  After using the above set  the complainant  had made allegation for the first time on Dt. 19.9.2017 through  job No.4245463276 before the O.P. No. 2  and  produced the above set  to  updated and hand (which  was mentioned in the job sheet at the   description column) after received the above set immediately the service  engineer of the O.P. No.2 had verified  the same  observed no defect  in the set. The Service Engineer of the O.P. No.2 updated the software of the  said set in warranty period and immediately handed over to the complainant in OK condition and the complainant had used the above set without any allegation. The allegations of the complainant are bald & vague and thus  this complaint  is liable to be dismissed  on this ground also.  Thereafter again  2^nd time  on Dt. 28.12.2017 the  O.P. No.2  had received the above set  from the  complainant   and immediately    after remove the Auto switch and  hang  by process of upgraded  the software of said  set in safe mode. Thereafter the complainant has used  the above set without any  allegation raised by him before any  from these O.Ps.  There after  all of sudden  on Dt. 26.2.2018 just before the expire of the  warranty, the complainant has filed this  complaiant with misconceived, wrong  unfounded, baseless, false, untenable, imaginary, vexatious and frivolous facts on suppressed all the real  facts, not only to secure  the illegal and unlawful gains from the O.Ps.

                The  O.Ps No. 2 & 3 relied  citations  which  are presented  here under.

  it is settled proposition of law as held in the case of Ravneet Singh BaggaVrs. 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 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”.

Again in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vrs. Shri  Ajwant Singh & Another reported in  2014(3) CPR- 724  N.C.,  the  Hon’ble National Commission opined that “Manufacturing defect must be proved by expert opinion”.

 

In this context  this forum for better appreciation relied citations which are mentioned here to support the present case in hand.

                It is held and reported  in C.P.R. 2009 (4) page No.88  in the case of  Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Vrs. M/S. Om Prakash Kidar Nath   the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab   where  in observed  “Manufacturing  defect(s) should be repaired or removed. Replacement or refund of price is not justified in every case”.

                Further it is held and reported in   National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases  1986-94 page No. 1367 (NS)   in the case of  M/S. Tata Engineering  & Locomotive Co. Ltd. And another  Vrs. M.Moosa the  National Commission where in observed  “If the manufacturing defects pointed out then the  manufacturers  should be directed to repair the manufacturing defects and not replacement of the  vehicle or refund  of its price. 

Further It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case  2005  Page No. 527 (NS) in the case of Meera&Co Ltd. Vrs. ChinarSyntex Ltd  where in the Hon’ble National Commission  observed “Consumer-    Generating set purchased -  defects developed  during  warranty  period - repairs done on payment - dealer can not be absolved from his liability   because manufacturer has not  been impleaded- dealer deficient in service- order  to dealer   refund   amount with interest to the complainant.”

 

The O.P. No.2 & 3  vehemently argued 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.3 within  warranty period    and to secure the unlawful gains from the O.Ps.

Admittedly the  purchase of the above  set   by the complainant is not denied.  The O.Ps have given an undertaking that they are  ready to  give the free  service and change the parts  with out charging  any price  as per the conditions of the warranty given to the said set within warranty period  but the  complainant    had not availed the   service centre service and  came to the forum for filing  of C.C. case before closing the warranty period.

In the present case  in hand the complainant   has failed to establish any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the  O.Ps.  Further  we find that  there is no reliable expert evidence to hold that   the above set suffered from any manufacturing defect    inter alia no  sustentative pleading have been incorporated  in the complaint to prove negligence on the  part of the   O.Ps. 

This forum agree with the views taken by the O.P No. 2 & .3  in their written version. 

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we are of the decisive opinion that the instant case  is devoid  of merit.  Further  this forum do not find any other legal issue involved in the matter. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason which would call  for our interference.

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

                                                                                               

O R D E R

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

The O.P No. 3 (Manufacturer) is  directed to remove all  the defects  of the above  set including  replacement of defective parts if any free of cost enabling the complainant to use the same in perfect running condition like a new one  if the complainant  approached  the O.Ps  to rectify the defect of his   set  and shall provide all sort of after sale service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the  warranty of the afore said   set  with  extended further six  months  fresh warranty.. Parties are left to bear their  own cost..

The O.Ps 1 & 2  are  directed to refer the matter to the O.P No. 3   for early compliance  of the above order and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No. 3   to provide satisfying service  for which she is entitled.

 

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in 60 days from the  date of receipt   of this order. Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Serve the copies of the  above order to the parties as per rule.

                Dictated and corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on     27^th.   day  of    August, 2020.

 

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT