DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __23_ _ OF ___2018

DATE OF FILING : 23.2.2018    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:5.3.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :    Sumit Kumar Chakraborty, Khasmallick, P.O Dakshin Gobindapur, South 24-Parganas, ,W.B-700145.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  1. Great Eastern Trading Company, Baruipur , Padmapukur, South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-144, O.PP. Rohini Suzuki.

                                     2.    Godrej Boyee Mfg. Co. Ltd. Appliance Di vision of Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai, Maharashtra-Pin-400079.

__________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

               The facts leading to the filing of the instant case and as it transpires in the amended petition of complaint, may be epitomized as follows.

               On 26.2.2016, the complainant purchased a washing machine of Godrej Company from the shop of the O.P-1 i.e Great Eastern Trading Company, Baruipur for a consideration price of Rs.23,400/- with 10 years warrantee on Wash Motor only and two years warranty on all other parts from the date of purchase. But the washing machine has snatched away the sleep of the complainant; he has got the machine repaired six times by the service men of the company. Now, he has filed the instant case, praying for refund of the consideration price on the ground of manufacturing defect of the machine and also for compensation. Hence, this case.

               Both the O.Ps have entered into appearance and also filed written statement separately. According to them, there is no manufacturing defect in the washing machine and ,therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for. Their further case is that there is no allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable in law. According to them, the complaint should be dismissed in lemini with cost .

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

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Are the O.Ps guilty of  deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

         Evidence on affidavit is led by both the parties. BNAS filed by the parties are kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2 :

          The washing machine was purchased by the complainant on 26.2.2016 and the case is filed by him on 23.2.2018 i.e only three days ahead of completion of the period of limitation of the case and also the period of warranty of the machine as regards the parts of the machine except the wash motor. These facts go undisputed. Taking these facts into consideration we do hold that the complainant has enjoyed the benefits of the machine for almost two years and thereafter he has filed the instant case .

           Only two days before filing of the instant case, the washing machine has been repaired by the men of the company. It is available from the documents filed on behalf of the complainant that the washing machine was lastly repaired by the men of the company on 20.2.2018 and the instant case is filed on 23.2.2018. It appears that the complainant has filed the instant case after having received the warranty service of the company in its fullest manner and this being so, we do not feel any hesitation to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

          The machine can be replaced by a new one only when it is found that there is manufacturing defect in the said machine. The burden of proof lies on the complainant who is required to establish by cogent evidence that there was manufacturing defect of the machine.

          In the instant case, the complainant has not brought on record any expert evidence to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the machine purchased by him from the O.Ps. In absence of such a cogent evidence, we cannot say that there is manufacturing defect    in the washing machine purchased by the complainant and, therefore, we do hold that the complainant is not entitled to replacement of the said machine by a new one.

              In the result, the case fails.  

              Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P nos. 1 and 2 but without any cost.  

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

                                                                                                                                                President

I / We agree

                                                            Member

            Dictated and corrected by me

                                                  President