West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/549/2014

Mr. Palash Kumar Mondal, C/O : Nirod Baran Mondal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Fairdeal International ( South). Repesented by the Authorized signatory. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _549_ OF ___2014__

 

DATE OF FILING : 14.11.2014                  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _14.8.2015___

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT              :   Mr. Palash Kumar Mondal, C/o Nirod Baran Mondal A.P Nagar(N), Jhilpar, Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. Fairdeal International (South), represented  by the authorized signatory having its office at 275, Sahebpara, Sonarpur Station Road, Kolkata – 150, P.S. Sonarpur and head office at 77, Deshpran Sasmal Road, Kolkata – 33.

                                             2.     Power Distribution Solutions, Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Block G.N., Sector – V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 91.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that he bought a Refrigerator of 190 liters manufactured by Godrej Company being Model no.RD EDGE PRO 190 PD SS.1 for Rs.14,500/- from Fairdale International (South), Sonarpur Branch on 16.08.2014. Employees of the shop came to deliver the refrigerator and activated the same . Next morning it was seen that water was flowing from the refrigerator to the other pieces of furniture of the room. On inspection it was found that water was constantly leaking from behind the refrigerator. Complainant immediately informed the O.P-1 about the problem but the O.P-1 expressed their inability to solve the problem and suggested him to contact the GODREJ Company. Accordingly Godrej Company sent Service Engineers but they also failed to solve the problem. Though the service engineer insisted him to sign the paper certifying that the required services had been given and everything was all right, but he refused to sign on that paper. The complainant informed the O.P-1 that a faulty refrigerator instead of one he has chosen, has been installed and requested them to replace the same but his request was refused and as per the complainant the refrigerator is defective and not functioning properly since inception till the date of hearing of the instant case. The complainant has prayed before this Forum for redressal of his disputes with prayer as mentioned in complaint petition.

O.p-1 is contesting the case but O.P-2 initially did not appear. On the date of hearing one Ld. Advocate of the O.P-2 wanted to submit application disclosing himself as a lawyer of O.P-2 but no vakalatnama was  there and wanted to submit undertaking. This Forum had opined that the proceedings of this Act will not run at the sweet will of the O.P-2. Moreover, the O.P-2 has not appeared on the date of argument with clean hand i.e. along with written version and vakalatnama and therefore, the Forum has no alternative but to reject the prayer of the O.P-2 was rejected and case was heard exparte against O.P-2.

The O.p-1 contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations made against it, contending inter alia that case is not maintainable against the O.P-1. The positive case of the O.P-1 is that one Godrej D.C. Refrigerator being Sl. No.1244 was supplied to the complainant but the complainant refused to accept that refrigerator and the O.p-1 replaced that refrigerator with new one of Sl. No.1345 will full satisfaction of the complainant. Moreover, It is the responsibility of the O.P-2 of this case who is the manufacturer of the Refrigerator to repair and replace the refrigerator  and as a seller O.P-1 has no liability or duty to repair or replace the machine of any parts of the aforesaid refrigerator and O.P-1 prays for dismissal of the case.

After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

1.  Whether the complainant is a “Consumer” as per definition of the C.P Act, 1986 .
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps under the purview of the C.P Act.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            All the points are interlinked. It is crystal clear that the complainant purchased a refrigerator after paying the full consideration to the seller, O.p-1, who is authorized dealer of the (O.P-2). Therefore, as per the provision of the C.P Act, 1986 complainant is a “Consumer” and the O.ps are ‘service provider’ and case is adjudicable by this Forum.

            It is beyond doubt that immediate after installation of the new refrigerator, it has started giving problem. This fact has been virtually admitted by the O.P-1.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the goods in question has manufacturing defect as Hon’ble National Commission has already been pleased to observe that “If any ‘goods’ is suffering from any problem within six months from the date of purchase, the defect should be considered as ‘Manufacturing defect’.

            As per the Ld. Advocate for the O.P-1, the liability to repair or replace the goods in question is only upon the Manufacturer, O.P-2. In this regard we are of the opinion that  being authorized distributor of the Manufacturer (O.P-1) cannot shrug off their liability.

            Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and considering balance of convenience and inconvenience we are of the opinion that the O.Ps are jointly and/or severally duty bound either to replace the goods in question or to refund the cost of the that goods (as per section 14 of the C.P Act). It is also opined by this Forum that to avoid the possibility of further disputes between the parties and harassment of the complainant O.Ps should refund the cost of the refrigerator to the complainant.

            It is also fact that   the above inaction of the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service and for this deficiency in service  of the O.Ps, complainant has to suffer mental agony and tremendous harassment and eligible to be compensated by the O.Ps.

            Thus all the points are discussed and all are in favour of the complainant.

            Therefore, the complaint case succeeds.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the case being C.C.no. 549 of 2014 be and the same is allowed with cost on contest against O.P-1 and exparte against O.P-2.

All the O.Ps jointly and/or severally are directed to refund the cost of the refrigerator amounting to Rs.14,500/- and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost  within 30 days from this date, failing which, Rs.100/- per diem will be imposed upon the O.Ps jointly and/or severally from the date of default till realization.

The complainant is directed to hand over the defective refrigerator to the O.Ps or their authorized representative within three days of receipt of entire awarded sum from the O.Ps.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                                            Ordered

That the case being C.C.no. 549 of 2014 be and the same is allowed with cost on contest against O.P-1 and exparte against O.P-2.

All the O.Ps jointly and/or severally are directed to refund the cost of the refrigerator amounting to Rs.14,500/- and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost  within 30 days from this date, failing which, Rs.100/- per diem will be imposed upon the O.Ps jointly and/or severally from the date of default till realization.

The complainant is directed to hand over the defective refrigerator to the O.Ps or their authorized representative within three days of receipt of entire awarded sum from the O.Ps.

 

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President