Orissa

Rayagada

CC/142/2017

Sri Ananta Palleswar Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Sital Enterprises, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  142/ 2017.                                           Date.       16 .     1  . 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Ananta Palleswar Behera, S/O: Late  Ananta Parama Behera, Near Jagannath temple, Po/ Dist:Rayagada,  765 001  (Odisha)                               …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The    Manager, Sital Enterprises, Near Axis Bank, Po/ Dist: Rayagada.   

2.The Chief Manager, LLOYD Electronic & Engineering Ltd., New Delhi, Correspondence address, Kalaji,  New Delhi- 110019.               .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps:- Sri Rabi Prasad Mohapatra, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx 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 a sum of Rs.43,000/- towards found defective within warranty period   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  put in their appearance and filed written version through their learned counsel  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  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.  Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the O.Ps  inter alia from the complainant.    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  LLOYD A/C   Model   No. LS19ASLK  from  the O.P. No. 1  on payment of consideration   a sum   for Rs.43,000/- to the  O.P. No.1 (copies of the  Retail invoice No. 280 Dt.29.09.2016    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 price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

                The O.Ps   in their written version contended that  the technician of the O.Ps while attending the call Dtd. 16.2.2017 found that  the complainant  had himself tried to  uninstall   and shift the exterior component of the A/C. as it was  found to be removed and the gas  pipe was also damaged resulting  in the leakage  of gas.  The O.Ps had re-installed the unit of the   customer on chargeable basis and repair inter  alia  gas charging   was  also done on  chargeable basis as damage was caused  due to the customer’s negligent  act.  The O.Ps had  received calls regarding complaints on Dt.6.2.2017, 16.2.2017, 22.6.2017, 15.9.2017.  All calls were duly  attended by the technician of the  O.Ps and issue  of the complainant was  resolved.  The O.Ps also had replaced the compressor of the A/C for the utmost satisfaction of the complainant within  warranty period. The technicians  of the O.Ps  has provided   their services to the complaints  registered  by the complainant to the best satisfaction of the  complainant.  At   last  on Dt. 13.11.2017  the technician  of  O.Ps had visited the  complainants premises  who thoroughly   inspected  the AC unit.  All parameters observed  were noted on the job sheet and it was found  that the A/C. was running perfectly O.K.   Even the complainant has endorsed his signature after being  fully  satisfied  to the services rendered (copies of the service  report is in the file which  are marked as Annexure-2).

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. 

Again  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”.

The O.Ps  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.Ps  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. 

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 found 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.Ps   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.Ps   are  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.    Parties are left to bear own 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 16^th.          day  of    January, 2019.

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT