Orissa

Rayagada

CC/19/2020

Sri Duraga Prasad Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, V Guard Industries Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.19/2020                                                        Date.  11 .11. 2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

Sri Durga  Prasad  Jindal, S/O: Late Dharmpal,  At: Bank Colony, 3^rd.lane,    Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha)..        9437372981,  7873046521                                                                                              …. Complainant.

 

Versus.

1.The   Regional  Manager,  V-guard  industries Ltd.,  Regd. Office, 42/962, Vennala High School Road,  Vennala, Kochi- 682028, Kerala State.

2.The Manager, V-Guard service cenre, Sai Sharddha Solutions, Bank colony, Near Dr. Kundu Clinic, Rayagada.                  … Opposite parties.

For    the complainant : Sri V.Ram Mohan Patnaik, Advocate..

For the O. Ps    : Sri  Jagadish   Panda, Advocate, Rayagada..

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification of V-Guard  Battery set  which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief  facts  of the case are summarized here under.

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,. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P . Hence the O.Ps  prays the District Commission  to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps   and from the 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   V-Guard Battery, VT-160  13CR  05323-VOC  05  RC-76890  from the  Jain Enterprises, Rayagada  bearing  Bill No. 551 Dt. 30.6.22017  on payment of consideration amount a sum of Rs. 14,500/  The O.Ps. had   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing   warranty period. (copies  of the       bill    is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I ).

After  using  2 years  i.e with in the warranty period  the complainant  has  shown  the defects in the  Battery..  Thereafter  the complainant   made complaint  on different dates i.e. 26.6.2019, 21.10.2019, 18.12.2019  to the O.Ps  but they have  not rectified the same till date. .  But the   O.Ps   had not rectified the  same  defect  within the warranty period.

            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 purchased the above  battery  for commercial purpose.   The O.Ps  further contended that the battery  in question was under warranty till Dt. 31.12.2019  and thereafter the said battery in question was under pro-rata warranty.  Hence the  above case be dismissed  against the O.Ps for the best interest of justice.

          Admittedly the O.Ps had  given service till 31.12.2019 to the complainant  on receipt of complain from  the complainant within  warranty period. Admittedly the   complainant has filed the above case on DT.7.3.2020  before the commission  after  warranty period  of 30 months.

The O.Ps in their written version contended that  the warranty of the alleged  set  had expired on Dt.  31.12.2019 and the complainant has filed this case  on Dt.7.3.2020  before the commission against  the  O.Ps after  2 year  9 months  of use of said alleged product for replacement. Therefore  the case is not maintainable  and which is abuse of process of law and liable to  be dismissed on this ground alone.     The O.Ps   vehemently argued  that  the service personnel of the O.Ps.   had repaired  the above set  by replacing the defective parts  by a new one within   warranty  period.  Thereafter if the defect was not removed   from his above set then why  he has not  lodged complain either before the O.Ps service centre  or before customer care  through on line immediately after repair.  As such it is assumed that all defects  must be removed from the above set.  The complainant has neither produced  any evidence nor any expert opinion report for her allegation. There was neither any deficiency in service committed by the O.Ps  nor by the service centre.   Further there is no chance of any wrong service  provide by the service personnel  of the O.Ps to repair the above set. Because all the defects of above set  are  rectified  by replacing the new spares against the defective spares only.

In the present case the O.Ps   further contended  that  the complainant has not filed any material evidence on record  which says that the said  above set  was having some inherent defect. The complainant has also not furnished any document which establishes  the fact that the complainant has made  number of attempts to rectify  the  set in question was having  some defect. In the absence of any strong proof the present  complaint is liable to be dismissed.

This commission  observed there is no iota of evidence regarding the  complaints made  to the service centre  from time to time for rectification of the above set  filed by the complainant before the commission.  If he found  some  defects in the above set  he could have lodged a complaint to the service centre of the O.Ps and it is always open to  the all consumers.  Had there been some mischief or malafied  on the part of the service centre officials of the  O.Ps  he should intimate the same to the O.P (manufacturer) immediately through E-Mail.

This  Commission   relied citations which are mentioned here.

  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.

Further in the case of Sandeep Bhalla   Vrs.  Ashoka Electronics Pvt. Ltd.  IV(2011) CPJ 138(NC) The Ho ble National Commission held that, if any product works smoothly 7-8 months  then it can not held to  be  defective. 

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  after warranty period    and to secure the unlawful gains from the O.Ps.

This forum agree with the views taken by the O.Ps. in their written version.  We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

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.

This commission  completely agreed with views taken  and the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this commission  feel the complainant is not entitled for  any  relief sought for  from this   commission and  shall   liable to be dismissed.

Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is  not entitled to  any claim in the instant case.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed. 

                                                                        O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.There is  no order as to cost and compensation.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced in the open forum on          11^th.      day  of    November, 2021.

                                                MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT