Orissa

Rayagada

CC/130/2017

Smt. D.Bala Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance Ditgital Retail Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.        130        / 2017.                            Date.   2   . 8   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,                                                    Member.

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,.                                              Member

 

Smt. D. Bala Kumari,  W/O: Sri D.Rama  Suriya Rao, At: Bebertha Street,   Po:Gunupur, Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha).                        …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Reliance Digital Retail Ltd.,Visakhapatnam, State: A.P.

2. The Manager, M/S. Samsung  India  Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon,122202, Hariyana.

3.The Manager,  M/S. Samsung  India  Electronics Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at A-25, Ground floor, front tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial  Estate, New Delhi- 110044.

4.The Manager, Sital Enterprises, Po/Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).

                                                                                                … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps No.1 :- In person.

For the OPs 2 to 4:-Sri K. Ch. Mohapatra, Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non rectification  defects  of the Refrigerator after  warranty period. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

          On being noticed the O.P.No.1  has  filed  written version refuting allegation made against them. The O.P.  No.1 contended  that the complainant  unnecessary made party to the O.P. No.1. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased the above product  on Dt. 14,10.2011  and made complaint  before the forum after  completed almost 6 years. The  O.P.No.1 is  only a retailer with limited liability   involved with sales and condtions in between customer and the  brand during the 1 year brand warranty.  Hence the allegations made in the complaint are to be dismissed by the forum  against the O.P. No.1.

On being noticed  the learned counsel for the O.Ps No.2 to 4  filed written version inter alia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps 2 to 4   deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps 2 to 4 taking one  & other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.Ps 2 to 4    prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

 

The O.Ps appeared and defend the case.  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 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.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a Samsung  Refrigerator  Model RS21 HDTGTPNI/XPL, Sl. No. D1S742BB200062D  on Dt. 14.10.2011 from the O.P. No.1  on  payment  of consideration  (Copies of the  bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).  The above product  was one year brand warranty valid upto 13.10.2012 against any manufacturing defects.  After warranty period  over the complainant  was   contacted the  O.Ps 2 & 3  for repair of the above  set.   In turn the O.Ps 2 & 3  had  sent mechanics for repair  and the complainant had paid the repairing charges of the fridge in several times  a sum of  Rs.4,600/- on Dt. 9.11.2015 (copies of the   cash bill No. 8 Dt. 9.11.2015 issued by the O.P. No.4  is  in the file which is marked as Annexure-2). Again  on Dt. 6.03.2017  the O.Ps mechanic came  to the complainants house and  had  taken  Rs.9,100/- for repair of the above set (copies of the   cash bill No. 55 Dt. 6.03.2017 issued by the O.P. No.4  is  in the file which is marked as Annexure-3). The complainant argued due to wrong service of the O.Ps  the above Refrigerator again wanted repair, and the food items and costly medicines of the complainant were damaged.  Hence  the  complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps to replace the Refrigerator.

The O.Ps 2 to 4 in their written version contended that  the warranty of the alleged Refrigerator had expired on Dt.  13.10.2012 and the complainant has filed this case against  O.Ps after  6  years 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 2 to 4  vehemently argued  that on Dt.11.3.2017 the service personnel of the O.P. No.4  had repaired  refrigerator by replacing the defective compressor by a new one at house of the complainant in out of warranty.  Thereafter if the defect was not removed   from her refrigerator then why  she has not  lodged complain either before the O.P. No.4 or before customer care  through on line immediately after repair, as she has made payment of Rs. 9,100/- towards said repair?  As such it is assumed that all defects  must be removed from the refrigerator, Suppose   the defect was not removed on said repair then why the complainant  has stored  the food and medicines  in the defective refrigerator?  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.P. No.2 nor by the service centre, Rayagada O.P.No. 4 . Further there is no chance of any wrong service  provide by the service personnel  of the O.P. No.4 to repair the refrigerator. Because all the defects of Refrigerator are  rectified  by replacing the new spares against the defective spares only.

 

The O.Ps  2 to 4  relied citations in his favour which are mentioned here.

The  O.P.  No.2 to 4 cited  citation in their written version,  it is settled proposition of law as held in  Ravneet Singh Bagga Vrs. 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 the  O.P.  No.2 to 4 cited  citation in their written version  i.e. 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”. The O.P. No. 1 &2  vehemently contended that in this case there is no defect in the  mobile set of the complainant, but the complainant has filed this fabricated complaint only to  tarnish the reputation of the O.P No.1   and to secure the unlawful gains from the O.Ps.

Again the  O.P.  No.2 to 4 cited  citation in their written  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 the O.P. No. 2 to 4  cited citation  in their written version  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. 

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.

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. 2 to 4 and dismissed  against the O.P. No.1.

The O.Ps 2 to 4  are directed to rectify the defects  of the above  set free of cost  if the complainant  approached. to the O.Ps  to rectify the defect of her   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  with extended warranty of one year.

          There is  no order as to cost and compensation.

                       

Dictated and corrected by me.

            Pronounced in the open forum on        2nd           day  of    August, 2018.

 

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT