West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/350/2015

1. Sri Samar Kumar Biswas. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. Myyriad - Opp.Party(s)

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

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

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _350_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : _30.7 .2015__                          DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 29/03/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :    1. Sri Samar Kumar Biswas, Flat no.11/5, Tower:7, Ruchira Residence, 369, Purbachal Kalitala Main Road, Kolkata - 78

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :    1.    M/s Myriad, GA-31, Rajdanga Main Road, Kol-107, P.S. Kasba.

                                                2.    M/s Kent RO System Ltd. A-2, Sector-59, Noida, U.P-201-309

                                                3.     M/s Kent RO System Ltd. Khasra No.93, Village-Bantakheri, Tehsil-Roorkee, District-Haridwar, Uttarakhand-247 668.

                                               4.         Shri Pradip Bera, Regional Manager, Eastern Region, M/s Kent RO System Ltd. 718, Room no.6A, Aakash Toweer Anandapur, Kolkata-107.

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President          

This an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on a ground that he has purchased a Water Purifier on 9.11.2013 and it was installed on the next date but found defective from the very beginning and inspite of informing the Kent’s Marketing office vide E-mail regarding non-functioning of defective CCB ,which was informed by the technician, no response from the side of the O.Ps. It appears from the series of e-mail which are annexed that complainant tried their level best to solve the dispute but all attempts failed even the Assistant Director , CA & FBP also failed to resolve the dispute, for which this complaint is filed.

            The O.P-1, from where the machine  was purchased, appeared but not contested the case.

            O.P nos. 2 to 4 contested the case by filing written version and have denied all the allegations leveled against them. It is the contention of the O.Ps that complainant has not allowed the technician for overall repair of the purifier system to the satisfaction of the complainant without any cost and compensation ,entirely on a goodwill gesture and to close the complaint, in the interest of justice.

 

 

Point for decision is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

 

                                                Decision with reasons

 

This is undoubtedly a good gesture of the O.,P but fact remains once it has imputed in the mind of the complainant who is a common person that this water purifier is not functioning, there is some manufacturing defect. Considering the totality of the circumstances when it is a matter of dispute of the water purifier and purifying water is the life of any human body, the non-response of the series of e-mail by the O.P amounts to deficiency in service, for which complainant compelled to arrange AMC by paying Rs.5500/- as well as paying Rs.1200/- for temporary repair and all these acts clearly suggest that O.Ps were very much non-cooperative in the matter of service after sale.

            Be that as it may, after hearing the representative of the O.P nos. 2 to 4 and the complainant and keeping in mind the goodwill of Kent Water Purifier it may be mentioned here that a machine may be defective but that does not mean that Kent Water Purifier is overall giving defective services. But this machine is defective, for which it is ,

                                                                                                Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.P nos. 2 to 4 and in exparte against O.P-1.

The O.P nos. 2 to 4 are directed to replace the said water purifier with a new one of same model with six months warranty within 30 days from this date, failing which O.P nos. 2 to 4 has to bear the litigation cost of Rs.1000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- ,which have to be paid after 30 days from the date of this order along with interest @9% p.a till its realization.

Complainant is directed to return the old water purifier after installation of the new one and the same will be taken by the O.P nos. 2 to 4 at their own cost.

It appears that O.P-1 initially appeared through ld. Advocate and he was directed to file written version but the O.P-1 neither appeared thereafter nor paid the cost and as such the case proceeded in exparte. In this circumstances O.P-1 is directed to pay punitive damage of Rs.5000/- which will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund and the payment has to be made within 30 days from this date.

It may be mentioned here that if the O.P nos. 2 to 4 failed to comply the above order ,then complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

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                                                           Member                                                           President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

           

 

                                                                                                Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.P nos. 2 to 4 and in exparte against O.P-1.

The O.P nos. 2 to 4 are directed to replace the said water purifier with a new one of same model with six months warranty within 30 days from this date, failing which O.P nos. 2 to 4 has to bear the litigation cost of Rs.1000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- ,which have to be paid after 30 days from the date of this order along with interest @9% p.a till its realization.

Complainant is directed to return the old water purifier after installation of the new one and the same will be taken by the O.P nos. 2 to 4 at their own cost.

It appears that O.P-1 initially appeared through ld. Advocate and he was directed to file written version but the O.P-1 neither appeared thereafter nor paid the cost and as such the case proceeded in exparte. In this circumstances O.P-1 is directed to pay punitive damage of Rs.5000/- which will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund and the payment has to be made within 30 days from this date.

It may be mentioned here that if the O.P nos. 2 to 4 failed to comply the above order ,then complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

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                                                           Member                                                           President