DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _61_ OF ___2017_
DATE OF FILING : 4.5.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 13.03.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad & Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Mihir Kanti Sarkar, son of late Pankaj Bihari Sarkar of Vill-Dutta para Baruipur, P.O + P.S Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas,Kol-144.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Authorised Officer, Sharp Business Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. AA-34, Salt Lake City, Sector-1, Kolkata 64.
2. Prosenjit Dey, Authorised Officer, K.R Cooling Solution, Office at 31, Tilak Nagar Regent Park, Kolkata-40, registered office at P313, Usha Park, Bansdroni, Kolkata – 70.
___________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Jhunu Prasad, Lady Member
Claiming himself as a Consumer, under the C.P. Act 1986, the complainant has sought for interference of this Forum in respect of fact complained of.
In diminutive, the case stated in the complaint, is that, the Opposite Party No.1 being the authorized agent of ‘Sharp A.C. Machine Company’ had advertised for selling and servicing of A.C. machine through the news paper namely “The Telegraph” on 18.04.2015 and also mentioned customer care phone No.
Being impressed by the said advertisement, the complainant contacted with the OP.No.1 over mobile phone as mentioned in the said news paper and applied booking for servicing his own A.C. machine.
In view of the said service booking the complainant paid Rs. 400/- and Rs. 5,000/- through A/C payee cheque in favour of the OP.No.2 on 23.02.2017 and 04.02.2017. Inspite of the receipt the money of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 5,000/- the OP.No.2 did not service the A.C. Machine of the complainant.
Thereafter the complainant several times requested over mobile phone to the OP no.2 to provide service of the said A.C. Machine or refund the money of the complainant, but OP.No.2 did not pay any heed to it.
Therefore, the complainant filed this instant complainant for getting relief as prayed for.
Issued notices upon the Opposite Parties.
After receipt of the notices, the Opposite Parties appeared and filed separate written version denying all the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable and the instant case is bad for mis - joinder and non – joinder of necessary parties. Save and except what has been specifically admitted in this written version, all other statements shall be deemed to have been categorically denied and traversed.
The specific case, as stated by the Opposite Party, in terse, is that, this company has no relation with the OP.No.2 K.R. cooling solution as the OP.No.2 neither the authorized service centre of the OP.No.1 or nor its vendor and the said phone nos. as mentioned in the complaint are not at all the customer care of sharp business system.
All the allegations made by the complaint is purposive, harassive, motivated and the instant complaint has no legs to stand upon and liable to be rejected in limini against the OP.No.1.
In written version, the OP.No.2 stated that OP.No.2 is not an authorized customer care service provider of Sharp A.C. Machine Company. After inspection of the said A.C. Machine of the complaint, the representative of the OP.No.2 submitted an estimated of Rs. 17,000/- for repairing charge of the said A.C. machine and asked the complainant to taken away to the workshop for carrying the repair work, whereas the complainant insisted for repairing of the said A.C. Machine at his residence and paid Rs. 400/- and Rs.5,000/-by cheques towards inspection charges and advance for repairing of the machine, purchase of spare parts though the OP.No.2 insisted for payment of 10,000/- as cost of spare parts. Subsequently cheque amounting to Rs. 5,000/- has been dishonored and on persuasion Rs. 5,000/- has been transferred in the account of the OP. No. 2. Thereafter in spite of repeated request regarding repairing of the machine and payment of the cost of spare parts which already expensed by the OP.No.2 for purchasing materials, the complainant was totally reluctant and ignored of deliver the machine for repair before OP.No.2. That is why the OP. No.2 prayed to quash the complaint lodged against them with a prayer for a direction upon the complainant to make good the loss sustained by OP.No.2.
POINTS FOR DECISION:-
1) Is the complainant a consumer or not?
2) Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS:-
At the time of argument the complainant and the Opposite Parties have filed affidavit –in- chief, BNA, and some Xerox copies of documents to support of their claim.
We have carefully considered the submissions made before us advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and OP.NO.1 and perusal of all the materials on record, it appears that the complainant is a consumer within the per view of section 2(i)(d) of C.P. Act 1986
The fact remains that the complainant though made an attempt to establish the allegation of collusion between the OP.No.1 and 2 regarding the advertisement published in the newspaper namely ‘The Telegraph’ on 08.04.2015, but the complainant failed to produce any evidence regarding any nexus between the Opposite Parties and also failed to produce any evidence to show that the OP. No. 1 received any charges from the complainant for repairing of the said A.C. Machine.
Therefore, we are of the view that OP.No.1 is an unnecessary party in this complaint.
Now, the main dispute between the complainant and the OP.No.2 is that whether the complainant paid Rs.400/- and Rs. 5,000/- for repairing his A.C. Machine and the OP.No.2 performed their job or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for or not.
The record also reveals from the photocopy of the documents filed by the complainant that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 5,000/- by two cheques in favoour of the OP.No.2 as inspection and repairing cost out of total estimated cost of Rs. 15,000/- but the OP. No. 2 failed to perform their job and also failed to produce any evidence regarding repairing of A.C. Machine. Therefore, allegation of complainant against OP.No.2 regarding denial to repair the said A.C. Machine appears to be believable.
Accordingly, the forum inclined to hold that the OP.No.2 committed deficiency in service within the purview of section 2(1)(g) of C.P. Act 1986 and liable to refund the entire money of Rs. 5,400/-to the complainant.
Therefore, from the discussions made above, it is concluded that the complainant has successfully proved his case. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the complainant deserves success.
Hence,
it is,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.NO.2 with cost of Rs. 2,000/-
That the Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to refund the money of Rs.5,400/- which has been paid by the complainant to the OP.No. 2 within one month from the date of this order.
That the Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to pay of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the entire amounts shall carry on interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till realization . The complainant may file an execution case in case the opposite party no.2 failed to comply the order as per law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
