Orissa

Rayagada

CC/60/2019

Sri Ch. Chandra Sekhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Umasankar Electronics & gifts - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001. .

                                                      ******************

            C.C.case  No  60            / 2019.                Date.20.8.2022

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                             President

Sri    Satis  Kumar  Panigrahi,                                               Member.

 

Sri Ch. Chandra Sekhar, At:Bebarta  street,   At/Po: Gunupur, Dist: Rayagada, State: Odisha,

Cell  No.70080 – 18054.                    

….                    Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager,  Sri Uma Sankar Electronics & Gifts,  Main Road, Gunupur, Dist:Rayagada, State:Odisha, 765 022.

 

2.The Manager,  Hitachi & life solutions(India) Ltd., Hitachi complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, Dist:Mehsana,State:Gujarat, (India).              ….                    Opposite parties.

 

For the  complainant:- Self.

For the  O.P. No.1:- Set exparte.

For the O.P. No.2:- Sri   L.N.Swain and associates.

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 A.C. set a sum of Rs. 48,900/- towards found defective during warranty period     for which  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 a Hitachi  AC RAU 518HWDD  ODU -160B 19469  IDU –Se 160b85641  from the O.P. No.1  on Dt.06.08.2018 on payment of consideration a sum of Rs.48,900/-.The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  warranty   vide Tax invoice No.2349  Dt. 06.08.2018.  That   within one year the above A.C  was not working perfectly as  the O.Ps  have not arranged for the  repairing  of the above A.C for working  properly. So I had informed   to the O.Ps for  replacement  of above A.C or refund of price  but  till date the complainant has not received any response from the O.Ps.  Further the complainant had made complaint to the O.Ps vide complaint No.19060709974  Dt.7.6.2019, but no response from the O.Ps. Hence this case filed  for redressal of grievance of the complainant.          

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.  1   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 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 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.  The action of the O.P No. 1  are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the   C.P. 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.

The O.P No. 2   put in their appearance and filed  written version through their counsel  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No. 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, . The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No. 2 .Hence the O.P  No.  2 prays the  to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel  for the O.P No.2   amd    complainant .    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This commission  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 a Hitachi  AC RAU 518HWDD  ODU -160B 19469  IDU –Se 160b85641  from the O.P. No.1  on Dt.06.08.2018 on payment of consideration a sum of Rs.48,900/- to the  O.P. No.1 (copies of the  Retail invoice No. 2349  Dt. 06.08.2018.  inter  alia  warranty  card  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  within warranty period  he wants  refund  of purchase  price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

The O.Ps  in  their written version contended that  the complainant had not  approached the O.P.  for the defect or the defect could not removed from his alleged  set  and also if the service centre   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.Ps 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. (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.  ?  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.    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.Ps are   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

 The O.P. No.2  submitted  that  they   made sincere efforts to redress the grievances of the complainant  if any,  prejudice to its legal  rights  and contention even after receipt of notice from the commission, the complainant refused    for further repair of the machine.    

          During the course of hearing  the   complainant is present  in person before the commission  and submitted a memo  stating that  after filing of the case we have amicably settled   the matter  out of court  and now  he does not want to proceed the case and he wants to withdrawal the petition.

 

             Heard from the complainant. Memo is allowed.

 

             The O.Ps  considering the exigencies   of  the matter with out any basis   in the right time properly settled the disputes  at his end to avoid further litigation by  over looking  all the deficiencies  without contesting the present case  in the sense of humanitarian point of view  by following  the principles of  natural  justice in view of justice as contemplated  the  Modos  Operandi  of the O.Ps   no doubt  worthy of credence.

                This  commission   perused the memo   filed by the complainant .   Memo is allowed.

                Accordingly the present dispute mitigated  and the  case stands disposed  and  the O.Ps wriggled out of  liabilities & the  case closed against  them    as  the  complainant   does not want to  proceed  with  the case further against the O.Ps  .

 

 

Copies of the order be served  on the parties free of cost  as per rule.

Dictated  and corrected by me.   Pronounced on  this   20^th. day of               August,  2022. 

 

Member.                                          President.