Orissa

Cuttak

CC/173/2014

Malay Kumar Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P K Mishra

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                                    C.C. No.173/2014

                                                                                        … Complainant.

Malay Kumar Mohanty,

Res. of ‘SRI’ Niwas,Netaji Vihar,

Pareswar Sahi,PO:College Square,

P.S:Malgodown,Dist:Cuttack.

 

                Vrs.

 

1. The Manager,

Reliance Retail Limited,3^rd Floor,

Court House,Lokmanya Tilak Marg,Dhobi Talao,

                   Mumbai

 

2. The Manager,

Customer Cell, Reliance Digital Retail Limited,

Reliance Corporate Park,WS 230,

Building No.4, 1^st Floor,C Wing, Thane,

Belapur Road,Ghansoli,Navi Mumbai.

 

3. The Cluster Head,

Reliance Retail Limited,Fortune Towers,

                   1^st floor,Gangadhar Meher Marg

Chandrasekharpur,Bhubaneswar

​

       4.The Service Manager,

Reliance Retail Limited,

Fortune Towers,1^st Floor,

Gangadhar Meher Marga,

                   Chandrasekharpur,Bhubaneswar

 

5. The Stores Manager/Branch Head,

Reliance Digital Retail Limited,                                                    … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   21.11.2014

Date of Order: 11.11.2016

 

 

For the complainant.  :   Sri Piyush Kumar Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For Opp.Parties.           :   Sri P.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                The complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and seeking appropriate reliefs against them  in the interest of justice.

1. The factual aspect of the complainant’s case is that the complainant was induced by the O.Ps to purchase a reliance RECONNECT LED T.V bearing Model No. RECONNECT-LED G 3901 and accordingly he purchased the said LED T.V on 23.11.13 from O.P.5 on payment of consideration of Rs.32,999/- vide A/c payee multicity cheque bearing No.545316 drawn on S.B.I,Cuttack City Branch,College Square,Cuttack.  Annex-1 is the photo copy of the said cheque.  The said LED TV was delivered to the complainant and installed in his house by technical persons of O.P.5 on 29.11.13 after lapse of about 6 days for the reasons best known to the O.P.5.  Annexure-2 & 3 are respectively the money receipt dt.23.11.13 and delivery note no.83721543 dt.29.11.13.
2. After such installation, when the complainant switched on the T.V. set, he noticed that rattling sound was repeatedly coming from the left hand side top corner of the said T.V unit. He was astonished and then intimated this fact to the technical persons of O.P.5 who came and examined the T.V set and assured him that after using the T.V for some days this problem would be rectified automatically.  But in fact the same defect persisted time and again creating problem for the complainant to watch the T.V. programme peacefully and this defect was noticed within the warranty period and in spite of repeated requests no response was received subsequently from the O.P.5.  He has produced the photo copy of the warranty card which has been marked as Annex-4.
3. It is important to leave a mention here that on the last occasion while the complainant was watching the T.V programme, there appeared a big patch on the left side corner of the said T.V unit where from the rattling sound was coming earlier.  The total T.V unit went out of order and it became nothing more than a show piece for the complainant.
4. It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant is a retired professor of Commerce, G.M.College, Sambalpur who was also working as a Dean Faculty of Commerce and Registrar of Ravenshaw University, Cuttack etc.  Even after retirement he is involved in a number of philanthropic activities.  Watching T.V programme was not a source of entertainment for him but to enrich his knowledge to enable him to work in the field of trade, commerce and economics ,to write various articles and to subscribe them to different Journals and also to suitably render counseling to the students to build their career.  But he was completely deprived of the opportunity of boosting his own career due to deficiency of service by the O.Ps in his post retirement life.
5. The O.P.No.5 after receipt of the last complaint from the complainant sent his technicians who came to residence of the latter and took a photograph of the T.V unit hastily and went away.  After some days they demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant towards repair and maintenance of the said defective T.V set even after lapse of 25 days of the complaint made by the complainant.  Such monetary demand by the O.P.5 is quite illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of professional ethics.    The illegal demand of the O.P.5 having not been fulfilled, he was putting blame on the complainant that the front panel of the said LED T.V unit was substantially damaged because of the bad impact on it caused by the mishandling and negligent act of the complainant..
6. Having no other alternative, the complainant sent a pleader’s notice on 22.7.14 by speed post to the O.Ps.  On 5.8.14 the O.P No.5 had given a reply to such advocate’s notice denying the allegations leveled against him by the complainant.  Annex-5 & 6 are respectively the photo copies of the advocate’s notice and reply to it.
7. Lastly the complainant was constrained to file this case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay him Rs.32,990/- towards cost of the LED T.V, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment, Rs.3000/- for his to and fro journey  between  his residence and office of the O.Ps, Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost and Rs.3000/- towards Tata subscription fees, all total Rs.1,07,290/- in the interest of justice.
8. The O.P.1 to 5 entered appearance and jointly filed the written version of their case.  At the outset it is stated that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has not approached this Forum in clean hands.  He is guilty of suppression of material facts.  There is also no cause of action to file this case.  They are not liable to pay all the reliefs sought for by the complainant since they were not deficient in rendering service to the complainant.  The rest of the material facts which are not specifically admitted by the O.Ps have been denied.
9. It is specifically stated that delay of six days in giving delivery of the T.V unit to the complainant was not due to any deliberate intention to cause harassment to him but because of the normal time taken by the bank for clearance of the A/c payee cheque submitted by the complainant towards consideration.  It is also stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the said T.V unit but the defect caused to it was man made because of own act of negligence of the complainant.  As such the complainant is debarred from getting any relief even during the warranty period.  Accordingly it is prayed that the case of the complainant is devoid of merit and may be dismissed with cost.
10. The points for determination are:

1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps in repairing the T.V. set bearing Model No. RECONNECT-LED G 3901 purchased by the complainant for consideration from O.P.4 on 23.11.2013?
3. Whether the O.Ps have adopted unfair trade practice by inducing the complainant to purchase the aforesaid defective T.V. set?

11. We have gone through the case record and verified the documents filed by the parties.
12. The basic controversy between the parties is admittedly with regard to the defect noticed in the T.V. set purchased by the complainant from O.P.No.4.  While the complainant has alleged that the said defect was a manufacturing one, the O.Ps on the other hand have taken the stand that it was a man made defect caused due to mishandling or negligent act of the complainant.  It is an admitted fact that the said defect was noticed within the warranty period of the said T.V. unit.  The specific stand taken on this point by the O.Ps is that since the said defect was man made by the improper use or negligent act of the complainant that defect cannot be removed under the terms and conditions of the warranty and for the said reason, the complainant has to pay Rs.25,000/- towards repair cost of the said T.V. unit for removal of such man made defect.  The complainant has disagreed to part with Rs.25,000/- towards cost of repair of the T.V. unit since the said defect was manufacturing one.  It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to prove that the defect in the T.V unit was a manufacturing one for which the said T.V had completely gone out of order.  But there is dearth of evidence on this point led by the complainant.  The learned advocate for the O.Ps has rightly submitted that to prove the manufacturing defect, the complainant is duty bound to place on record the opinion of the expert who is an engineer having technical  qualification and practical experience.  But in the instant case, the complainant has neither filed any expert opinion nor has even attempted to file the same in order to determine the nature of the defect. It is an admitted fact that in absence of such report and opinion from the expert, no conclusion can be arrived at as to the nature of defect appearing in   the said T.V set.  As such it cannot be conclusively held that the defect in the T.V. set was manufacturing one so as to make the O.Ps liable to pay compensation and other reliefs claimed by the complainant on the ground of deficiency in service and following unfair trade practice on their part.

ORDER

In the ultimate analysis it is held that the complainant has failed to satisfactorily prove that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence the prayer of the complainant is found devoid of merit and as such stands dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 11^th day of November, 2016 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                                         President.

                                                                                                                                    (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                                 Member.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                                                 Member(W)