Kiran Rout filed a consumer case on 07 Sep 2017 against The Manager,Shivam Electronics in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/176/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Sep 2017.
Orissa
Cuttak
CC/176/2014
Kiran Rout - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Manager,Shivam Electronics - Opp.Party(s)
Self
07 Sep 2017
ORDER
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.
For the Opp. Party. : Sri B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.
Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.
The case is against deficiency in service on the part of O.P.
Shortly the case is that the complainant purchased a Micro Oven on 24.10.2006 for a price of Rs.7200/- from O.P No.1.(Exhibit-1). After purchase it was observed that the micro oven was not functioning properly for which the complainant wanted to replace the same and wrote various letters to O.P No.1. (Exhibit-2). The said oven was given to the service centre at Cuttack for repair but the service center failed to repair/replace the same (Exhibit-3). Such intimation was given to O.P No.1 who advised to carry the said micro over to the authorized service centre at Bhubaneswar. The said oven was given to Authorized service centre at Bhubaneswar on 04.01.2011 but in vain(Exhibit-4). On 27.03.2011 the show room manager was consulted who intimated that the “Electrolux” is closed for which it cannot be repaired but can be exchanged with a new one on payment of 20% of the cost of the new oven and they will bear rest 80%. The complainant was away and remained absent for a month and thereafter remained busy in her professional work. On 09.06.2011 she made a written request to O.P No.1 to replace oven (Exhibit-5). On 22.09.2014 the complainant made a 2nd letter to O.P No.1 to this effect but it yielded no result(Exhibit-6). On 18.11.2014 the complainant again visited O.P No.1 and requested for exchange of the said oven and also talked regarding the reminders given for the purpose but O.P No.1 did not agree to the request of the complainant. Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum. She has prayed to direct the O.P to refund the cost of Micro oven amounting to Rs.7200/- and Rs.3000/- for moving to the service centre, Rs.50,000/- for inconvenience caused in the absence of Micro oven, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony,Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation. Thus she has claimed a total sum of Rs.2,35,200/- from the O.Ps.
O.P No.1 vide written version dt.29.10.2015 has stated that the complainant had purchased a Micro over from O.P No.1 on 24.10.2006. The O.P No.1 had no knowledge regarding the complaint lodged by the complainant vide Exhibit-2. The complainant has not lodged any complain with the O.P No.1 during the guarantee period. Moreover in this case the manufacturing company has not made a party by the complainant for which the manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties.
O.P No.2 & 3 neither attended the hearing nor submitted any written version.
We have gone through the case in details, perused the documents/papers as filed by the complainant and as well as by O.P No.1, heard the advocates from both the sides at length and observed that the complainant had purchased a Electrolux Micro oven for Rs.7200/- on 24.10.2006 from O.P No.1. The Micro oven was with a warranty for 12 months against defective material and work manship whereas the Magnetron was with a warranty of 3 years from the date of purchase. The Micro oven was shown at service centre on 09.07.2008 after a period of one year and 8 months as per service request No.1/141 but details of service requested/services provided not indicated in the said sheet. Again it was given for repair on 04.01.2011 and was brought back on 13.4.2011 without repair/replacement due to non-availability of spare parts. The job sheet (out door) dt.13.4.2011 indicates complaint regarding starting problem. The complainant has admitted that the show room manager had intimated her on 27.03.2011 to exchange the Micro oven with a new one since Electrolux was closed but the complainant neither produced any such document to this effect nor was able to replace the said Micro oven with a new one by paying 20% of the cost of the new one as verbally intimated to her by O.P No.1 on 27.3.2011. The complainant intimated O.P No.1 to replace the said oven on 22.9.2014 i.e. after a period of about 3 years and six months. The complainant has not lodged any complaint with the service centre after 09.07.2008 till 04.01.2011 as learnt from the copies of service request as provided by the complainant. The Micro oven was purchased on 24.10.2006 and Ist complaint was lodged on 09.07.2008 but the said complaint is silent regarding nature of complaint and services provided for the purpose (as per annexure-3). Again the complaint was lodged with O.P No.3 on 04.01.2011 and again on 13.04.2011 but the warranty of 3 years on Magnetron was expired by this time i.e. on 24.10.2009. The manufacturing company has not made party by the complainant in this case for which the manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of parties.
ORDER
Basing on the facts and circumstances, as stated above, it is observed that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. Hence the case is dismissed.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 7th day of September,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
(Sri B.N.Tripathy )
Member.
( Sri D.C.Barik )
President.
(Smt. Sarmistha Nath)
Member(W).
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.