West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/323/2015

Smt. Geeta Nandi, Wife of Sri Barun Nandi. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. Anand and Company Electronics Pvt. Ltd. ( Unit Capital Electronics) - Opp.Party(s)

Prabir Chandra Ghosh.

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _323_ OF ___2015_

 

DATE OF FILING : 15.7.2015                     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  9.2.2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :     Smt. Geeta Nandi, w/o Sri Barun Nandi of 309, Parnasree Road, No.2, Shyamolima, Flat no.2, P.S. Parnasree, Kolkata – 60.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. M/s Anand & Company Electronics Pvt Ltd. 248/A, Diamond Harbour Road, Behala, P.S. Parnasree, Kolkata – 60.

                                             2.     M/s Samsung India Electronics pvt. Ltd. 2nde,3^rd and 4^th floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector-43, Gurgaon-122 002.

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

The application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant on the ground that she has purchased one Samsung brand 1.5 ton AC split Unit Model no.18FC2TA manufactured by O.P-2 at a consideration of Rs.29000/- including tax. It has further stated that on 22.1.2014 the same was delivered at the residence of the complainant through its men against payment of balance sum of Rs.8,500/-  against Invoice no. CASH/2725/13 dated 19.01.2014 and the same was installed at the bed room of the complainant. But inspite of installing the same the service of the said AC was not satisfactory ,for which, O.P-1 sent technician to find out the defect and Service Engineer from O.P-2 has detected that although complainant purchased 1.5 ton AC but Unit installed at the residence of the complainant is 1 ton only. So, complainant has intimated the same in the show room of O.P-1 and having admitted their fault by saying it was mistake on their part assured that it would be rectified immediately by changing he said unit but the same was not yet done . Hence, this case.

It appears that O.P-2 although appeared by filing vakalatnama along with the petition with prayer that no copy of complaint is served upon them, for which complainant was directed to serve copy of the complaint but none appears on behalf of the O.P-2 thereafter and O.P-1 inspite of receipt of summon is reluctant to appear,that is why, case is taken up for exparte hearing .

Points for decision in this case is whether there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted byu the O.Ps or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

It appears from the Annexure A that complainant deposited initially Rs.500/- which is a Kachcha money receipt, wherein it was mentioned “Samsung 1.5 ton dated 19.1.2014”. Apart from that the other document does not show whether the Samsung machine is 1 ton or 1.5 ton which has been cleverly did by the O.P by not mentioning the same in the delivery challan Annexure B as well as Invoice dated 19.1.2014. This is unfair trade practice and it is fortunate for the complainant that somehow at the time of deposit of Rs.500/- he was able to get kachcha receipt, wheein, 1.5 ton has been mentioned, that is why, we find that O.P namely O.P-1 purposely did it in order to wrongful gain from the innocent complainant ,that is why we find that  it is a glaring example of unfair trade practice of O.P-1 and knowing fully well O.P-1 did not appear inspite of receipt of summon.

Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P act,1986 is allowed in exparte against O.P-1 and dismissed against O.P-2.

O.P-1 is hereby directed to change the A.C by supplying 1.5 ton in the same model or higher model and to take back the 1 ton AC which has been supplied in the bed room of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which O.P-1 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- to the complainant positively.

O.P-1 is further directed to pay litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5000/- within 30 days from this date.

We find that O.P-2 being manufacturer have  no liability in the matter of unfairness acted upon by the dealer O.P-1 by supplying 1 ton AC instead of 1.5 ton AC.  

It is further stated that if O.p-1 is unable to change the installed AC ,then O.P-1 is to return entire money of Rs.29000/- along with interest @15% p.a from 25.1.2014 till its realization and in that event O.P-1 has to pay compensation and litigation cost in addition to that as stated above ,failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the O.P-1 only.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

                                                Member                                                                       President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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