.DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _333_ OF ___2015

 

DATE OF FILING : 22.7.2015    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  _2.7.2018_

                                                                                            

Present :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

 

    Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

      

COMPLAINANT        : Satyaban Ranjit, Numans Park, Vill. Chakrajumolla, P.O Pailanhat, P.S Bishnupur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-700104. 

 VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps :  1. M/s Bengal Speech & Hearing Pvt. Ltd. 11/1/1, Sultan Alam Road, Ground Floor (Near Rabindra Sarobar Metro Station ), Kolkata – 700033. 

  2.     Oticon India, Otic Hering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Sai Sangam, Office No.706/707, 7th floor, Plot no. 85, Sector-15, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai -400614.

3.     GN Resound India Pvt. Ltd. Headquarters, India at Mumbai office at 1201/1202/1203, 12th floor, V Times Square , Plot no.-3, Sector-15, Palm Beach Road, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai -400614.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                                    J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President 

                      The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant is that the complainant purchased two Hearing Aid Machines – one for his father ,since deceased, and another for his mother – on 31.10.2012 for a total consideration price of Rs.14,950/- ( Rs.8450/- plus Rs.6500/- ) from the O.P-1 with Lifetime International Warranty card along with verbal warranty for a period of 10 years. The said machines used to go defective and were repaired several times by the O.P-1. Last of all, on 19.11.2014 it did not function properly and ,therefore, the complainant deposited the same with the O.P-1 for repair. The O.P-1 charged a huge amount for repairing from the complainant and did not return the machines to the complainant. Now, he prays ,inter alia, for return of the cost price of the two machines and for payment of compensation etc. Hence, the case. 

                    The written version of statement is filed by the O.P-1 who contends inter alia that the two machines were sold to the complainant and that the same were also deposited by the complainant on 19.11.2014 for repairing. The warrantee period for the machines were only two years and warranty period of one of the machines expired and, therefore, they charged payment of Rs.4000/- from the complainant as cost of repair of one machine. The complainant did not pay the said amount i.e Rs.4000/- and did not take the delivery of the machines. There is no deficiency in service on his part and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed in limini. 

                    The O.P nos. 2 and 3 have not filed any written version to contest herein and, therefore, the case is heard expartre against them. 

     Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.

 

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

 

Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service  as alleged by the complainant?

Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

         The complainant and the O.P-1 have filed evidences on affidavit.   Questionnaires, replies and BNAs filed by the parties are kept in the record for consideration. 

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 :

          Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties. Perused the complaint, written version and the materials on record. Considered all these. 

        It is admitted fact that the two machines were deposited by the complainant with the O.P-1 on 19.11.2014 for repair. But, the version of the said O.P is that he charged Rs.4000/- as cost of repair as one of the machines went expired in so far as it’s warranty service was concerned. On the other hand, it is the case of the complainant that the two machines carried with them the warranty service for 10 years or lifetime warranty.  No document whatsoever has been filed on behalf of the complainant to prove that those two machines carried warranty with them either for 10 years or for lifetime. On the other hand, the “User Guide Book”  has been filed on behalf of the O.P and it is found therefrom that the machines were sold to the complainant with 24 months International Warranty. Regards being had to all these provisions as is manifested in User Guide Book , we find no difficulty whatsoever to hold that the warranty period for those machines was only for 24 machines ,not for 10 years or lifetime. If this be so, the warranty period expired on 31.10.2014. The said machines were deposited with the O.P-1 on 19.11.2014 i.e after the expiry of the warranty period. So, the O.P-1 was within his legal right to claim cost of repair from the complainant. According to the O.P, the complainant has not paid the said cost and has not taken delivery of the machines from him and that there is no deficiency in service on his part. 

          There is no document to prove that the machines were kept ready for delivery to the complainant by the O.P-1. The O.P-1 could have informed the complainant by letter, asking him to take delivery of the machines from him on payment of the cost. But no such letter has been produced before the Forum to prove that he was all along ready to deliver the machines to the complainant on receipt of the cost of repair. Taking into consideration this indolent conduct of the O.P-1, we feel compelled to say that here lies deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1. That apart, the O.P agreed at one stage of the proceedings to forego the repair cost of the two machines, vide order no.13 dated 4.10.2016. 

          Point nos. 1 and 2 are thus disposed of accordingly.      

 

                        In the result, the case succeeds. 

                       Hence, 

ORDERED

that the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P-1 with cost of Rs.5000/- and dismissed against rest of the O.Ps. 

The O.P-1 is directed  to return the two Hearing Aid machines in running condition  to the complainant after doing proper repair thereof within a month of this order, failing which the O.P will have to refund the entire consideration money of the machines i.e Rs.14,950/- to the complainant.

O.P-1 is also directed to make payment of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused  to the complainant within the aforesaid period ,failing which, the compensation amount as referred to above will bear interest @10% p.a till realization. 

     Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.    

 

    President

I / We agree

                    Member Member

Dictated and corrected by me 

 

President