Orissa

Rayagada

CC/64/2020

Sri Pramod Kumar Sukal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

22 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     64      / 2020.                             Date.  24        . 3. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

Sri Pramod Kumar Sukal,  Shashtri Nagar, Rohit colony,   5^th. Lane, Po/ Dist:Rayagada. 765 001.     Cell No. 8895853610.                                                                                                      …Complainant.

Versus.

1. The   Manager, The  Reliance  Retail Ltd.,  City Mail, Second floor, Plot No. A 047A, ., IPIA Road  No. 03, Kota, Rajstan State.,324005.
2. The Manager, Reliance  Service Centre, Sri Om Electronics, Gandhi Nagar, Ist.lane,  Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam..                                              .…..Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

.For the O.Ps  :- In person.

JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non removing defects from the  LED T.V. within the warranty period  for which  the complainant  sought compensation and refund of purchase price   and redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps   1 & 2 put in their appearance and filed joint  written version 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.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This District  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..

Undisputedly  the complainant had  purchased a LED TV  Code No. 491211802, Reconnect 2 HD LED TV. Releg-3206, Sl.No. 652312132132133486 on Dt. 17.8.2016. The price of the LED TV. was Rs.14,990/-  which was paid by the  complainant (copies of the  bill and  delivery note are available  in the file which is marked  as  Annexure-I & 2).  Undisputedly the  warranty period  was 2 years from 17.9.2016  to 16.9.2018 (copies of the warranty card is available in the file which is marked   as annexure-3).  Undisputedly the complainant had made 4 years extended warranty from 16.9.2018 to 17.9.2022  under  ResQ  service  plan  on Dt.6.4.2018 and paid  Rs.3,534/- in shape of cheque No. 758944 Dt.6.5.2018 (copies of ResQ plan  is  available in the file which is marked  as Annexure-4 and payment details bank statement  marked  as Annexure-5).

The main grievance of the complainant is that  due to continues repair  and non removing of manufacturing defects  of the above set the complainant has no other alternative than to approach  this District Commission for redressal  of his grievance. Hence this C.C. case.

The  O.Ps  in their written version contended that this District Commission  has no territorial jurisdiction  to entertain this dispute.

                The  complainant  had  made order  to the  O.P No.1    through on line  for purchase  of  above   article   and the   complainant had sent the  amount to the O.P No.1  from  Rayagada(Odisha)  and the  O.P. No.1 had sent the  above article  to the  complainant  in   Rayagada  address, hence this  District Commission has territorial  jurisdiction   to entertain the case.

1. It is well presumed that, the product has latent defects, which the O.P.2 i.e. the authorised service centre of the Manufacturer of the Hand set failed to rectify.  Even after the complaint, the O.P.s did not feel their responsibilities  to get the grievance of their customer redressed  or get the set  replaced .
2. We have perused the warranty card issued by the O.P.1 with the product. It carries one year warranty.
3. With respect to goods sold to consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 ,(hence after called “the Act” )  its provisions provide for a warranty of quality against latent defects, a warranty of use and a warranty of durability considering the price, contract and normal conditions of use of the product, in addition to prohibitions respecting false representations in the contract or in advertisements. Pursuant to product liability in the Act, the seller is bound to warrant the buyer that the property and its accessories are, at the time of the sale, free of latent defects. If the seller was aware or could not have been unaware of the latent defect, he is bound not only to restore the price, but also to make reparation for the injury suffered by the buyer,
4. Moreover, in a consumer contract, a seller may never invoke his lack of knowledge of the defect where the purchaser's claim is based on the statutory warranties under the CPA, and any clause that seeks to limit the implied warranties of quality and fitness is strictly prohibited and may even result in award of punitive damage.
5. Express warranty is defined in the C.P.A-2019 which is reproduced here as follows-

6. Sec. 2 (20) "express warranty" means any material statement, affirmation of fact, promise or description relating to a product or service warranting that it conforms to such material statement, affirmation, promise or description and includes any sample or model of a product warranting that the whole of such product conforms to such sample or model;”
7. The Legal presumption of product liability in a contract of sale, is that, a defect is presumed to have existed at the time of the sale if the product malfunctions or deteriorates prematurely in comparison with identical property or product of the same type; such a presumption  can only be  rebutted by the seller or the manufacturer if the defect  was  due to improper use of the product  by the buyer.
8. This legal presumption significantly lessens the burden of proof on the buyer who, instead of having to prove the existence of a  inherent  defect at the time of the sale, which is impossible for an ordinary buyer without any technical knowledge of the hardware or software of an electronic product, only has to show that the product has deteriorated or malfunctioned prematurely compared to similar goods. Once this has been proved, it is presumed that the product had a an inherent  defect at the time of sale.
9. On the other hand, where the presumption of product  liability  is applied,, the seller must be able to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the probable cause of the defect is attributable to the negligence of a buyer  to rebut the presumption. He has to demonstrate, that, there could not be other cause than the negligence of the buyer to have the cause of defect in the product. But it can  not be said to be sufficient for the seller or the manufacturer to raise the argument that the defect could have several causes and that the precise cause of the defect cannot be determined.
10. Mere blunt denial of  guarantee of the warranty for the product and repudiate the claim of the consumer without establishing the case of defect beyond any other probabilities, as made by the O.P.1 i.e. the manufacturer can never expunge him of the liability to refund the price of the product and compensate the Complainant for the mental agony and loss of business.
11. From the above discussions and perusing the submissions filed by the complainant, we have carefully verified the alleged set which is left totally defunct. It is further noticed that, the OPs despite receiving notice of this forum  have failed to take any initiations to settle the matter of complainant and there is nothing to reject the contentions of complainant that, he has suffered from mental agony and loss of ability coordinating his official job. Hence we feel that the action of OP is illegal, highhanded and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence found guilty under 2(11)   of the C.P.Act 2019, hence the complainant is lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. As thus the complaint is allowed against the O.Ps.      

O  R  D  E  R

i.        The O.P.No.1 and O.P.No. 2 are  hereby severally and collaterally  directed to pay the price of the set Rs.14,990/-(Rupees Forteen thousand nine hundred ninety) only and Resq plan purchase price  Rs.3,534/-  inter alia to pay Rs.5,000/-(Five Thousand) as compensation towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/-( two  thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.       All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order.

Pronounced on this the       24^th.      day of   March, 2021

MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT,

                                                                              DCDRC,    RAYAGADA.