West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/55/2016

Mr. Bholanath Khanra, S/O Late Naba Kumar Khanra. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. Samsung Electronics India ( Pvt) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

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

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _55_ OF ___2016_

 

DATE OF FILING : 10.9.2015                     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  2/9/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :     Mr. Bholanath Khanra,s/o late Naba Kumar Khanra of 23/1/B, Mousuf Sanfui Road, Budge Budtge, P.S. Budge Budge, Kolkata – 137.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :     1. M/s Samsung Electronics India (Pvt) Ltd. Samsung House Ground Floor, 4, Lee Road, Kolkata – 20.

                                               2.     S.N Enterprise, M/s Samsung Service Centre of 61/1, Prince Golam Hossain  , Kolkata – 32

                                           3.      M/s Sharada Electronics, Gupta Complex Gr F1, Dharmatala Road, Budge Budge of 522, M.G Road,  Budge Budge, Kolkata – 137.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that complainant purchased one AC machine 1 Ton of Samsung Brand from the O.P-3. But after installation of the said AC machine it was not providing cooling even after running an hour. The matter was informed to the O.P-3 by physical visit to the shop and then as per suggestion a complaint was lodged to the O.P-2 through its Customer Services. Thereafter, O.P-1 suggested to contact the authorized service centre i.e. O.P-2. Thereafter the machine was taken back by the Engineer of Service Centre, O.P-2 and after few days O.P-2 returned the machine after repair and it was functioning for a few days but thereafter the same problem was cropped up and even after running the same machine same was not cooling. The matter was again informed to the O.P-2 . At that time the Engineer informed the complainant that machine is not defective but it needs to replace the Gaspipe and for that purpose he demanded Rs.2000/- but the complainant refused to pay the same and informed the matter to the Consumer Affairs Department and tripartite meeting was held on 9.7.2015 ,where concerned authority observed to replace the defective AC machine but the O.Ps did not turn up. Hence, this complaint with a prayer to refund Rs.28,500/-  along with accrued interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/-, cost of Rs.20,000/-etc.

The summon was sent to the O.Ps but none appears and one S.R returned with the remark “Left” . We are aware that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in FMA no.42 of 2003 decided on 16.5.2005 by Hon’ble Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya of our Calcutta High Court “Left” is a good service. But none of the O.Ps appear ,for which case is running in exparte against them.

Accordingly we find that in this clinching heat when the complainant is able to afford AC machine he should get proper services of the said machine as complainant has invested Rs.28,500/-  but he is not getting any comfort in this extreme summer season ,for which we decided to dispose of the case immediately when O.Ps deliberately are not attending the Bench and definitely they have nothing to say against the complaint by the complainant. Apart from that, complainant had filed one application for treating the complaint petition as his evidence and wanted to argue the case considering the urgency in the matter. In this circumstances argument was heard.

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

                                                            Decision with reasons

Admittedly complainant has purchased one AC machine from the O.P-3 after paying Rs.28,500/- but the said machine is not giving good performance because even after running the said machine the room was not cooling. So, purpose of using this machine is highly frustrated, for which complainant approached the O.P-3 and as per O.P-3 he approached he O.P-1 manufacturer who advised to solve the dispute through the O.P-2 who is a service centre and Engineer of the O.P-2 had taken back the AC machine and tried to repair but the repair was not satisfactory and lastly demanded Rs.2000/- for changing the cooling.

Here ,the question is that why the complainant will unnecessary bear Rs.2000/- for defect of gaspipe of the said AC machine. It was the duty of the manufacturer to arrange for change gas pipe and why not the said gas pipe was changed by the O.P-1 when the AC machine was taken back at first time. This act is undoubtedly unfair trade practice.

It is needless to say that in a new machine if any parts is defective and the same is within the warranty period then definitely the manufacturers have to change the same. But here in the instant case the said machine was not changed.  Inspite of that O.Ps demanded Rs.2000/- ,that is why, complainant was not agreed and filed this case. As the matter was failed in the mediation by the Consumer Affairs Department we find that it is a glaring example of deficiency in service and trade practice.

Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed exparte against the O.P nos. 1 and 3 and dismissed against O.P-2.

The O.P nos. 1 and 3 are directed to refund entire consideration money of Rs.,28,500/- which is the cost of the AC machine along with interest @9% p.a since 18.4.2014 to till its realization, within 30 days from this date.

The O.P nos. 1 and 3 are directed jointly and/or severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Bench.

It may be mentioned here that we found no liability of O.P-2 who is a Service Centre. So, case against the O.P-2 is dismissed in exparte.                                               

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

 

                                                       Member                                                                President

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

                        President

 

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

                                               

Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed exparte against the O.P nos. 1 and 3 and dismissed against O.P-2.

The O.P nos. 1 and 3 are directed jointly and/or severally to refund entire consideration money of Rs.,28,500/- which is the cost of the AC machine along with interest @9% p.a since 18.4.2014 to till its realization, within 30 days from this date.

The O.P nos. 1 and 3 are directed jointly and/or severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Bench.

It may be mentioned here that we found no liability of O.P-2 who is a Service Centre. So, case against the O.P-2 is dismissed in exparte.                                               

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

 

                                                       Member                                                                President