DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

             C.C. CASE NO. 247_ OF ___2015

DATE OF FILING : 28.5.2015                    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 12.06.2018

Present                      :   President       :    

                                        Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad                                                   

COMPLAINANT              :      Somnath Choudhury, son of late Chittaranjan Choudhury of 63, Bansdroni Park, P.S Regent Park, Kolkata – 70.

                     -  VERSUS   -

O.P/O.Ps                         :   1.  The Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. at A Wing (3^rd Floor), D-3, District Center Saket , New Delhi-110017 and regional office at 6^th floor, Metro Tower, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 71.

                                              2.   The Manager , Multi Channel Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Brand Shop-LG), at 223, N.S.C Bose Road, Bansdroni, Kolkata – 47.

                                              3.   The Director, Bajaj Finserve, at Mumbai-Pune Road, Akrdi, Pune-411 035, Maharashtra and regional office at 120H1, 12^th Floor, Plot no.G-1, EP & GP, Infinity Benchmark, Sector V, Saltlake City, Kolkata – 91.

_____________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Subrata Sarker, Member

     The nub of the complainant’s case is that he purchased one Top Load Washing Machine ( Model no. T7548TEEL3. ADRPEIL ) of LG Brand on 30.12.2014 from the O.P-2 for a consideration of Rs.19,200/-. The machine was delivered to the complainant and it was also installed in his house but shortly after installation of the machine, the Jet Spray of the machine  did not function properly and as a result the machine went stopped. A complaint was lodged with O.P-2 on 20.1.2015. The authorized representative of O.P-2 came to the house of the complainant and after installation of the machine he expressed his inability to repair the same on 31.1.2015 . Two Engineers of the company also came to the house of the complainant but they also failed to put the machine in order Thereafter the complainant was intimated that the said machine would be replaced by a new one .But nothing was done by the company in respect of replacement of the machine till 5.5.2015.  Legal notice was also served upon the O.Ps by the complainant, but this notice also failed to produce any positive effect. Hence, this case, praying for replacement, compensation etc.

      Written statement has been filed by the O.P nos. 1 and 2 ,wherein they have admitted the sale of the machine to the complainant. Also admitted is the fact that the complainant lodged complaint before them on 20.1.2015. It is admitted by them that the company offered on 4.5.2015 to replace the washing machine of the complainant, but complainant was not satisfied with such replacement, because he is greedy enough to recover compensation from the company and, therefore, he has filed the instant case to get away with his maneuvre.

     There is no cause of action made out against O.P-3 who is the Financer of the complainant and, therefore, the case deserves to be dismissed against him.

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

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

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

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Both the parties have led their Evidences-on-affidavit, and the same are kept in the record for consideration .

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2  :

In the instant case it stands proved by the version of the O.Ps themselves that the machine suffers from manufacturing defect. The O.Ps offered to replace the said machine and this offer of the O.Ps goes to prove by itself that there is manufacturing defect in the washing machine of the complainant. The O.Ps are still ready and willing to replace the said machine. Regards being had to this aspect, we are of the opinion that he said machine should be replaced by a new one by the O.Ps.

Now the question which is nagging behind us is, whether the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. To this question, our reply is that the O.Ps will have to pay compensation to the complainant if it is found that the complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony due to deliberate laches on the part of the O.Ps. The undisputed fact of the case is that the complainant lodged complaint before the O.Ps on 20.1.2015. The offer of replacement of the washing machine was given to the complainant by the O.Ps on 4.5.2015 i.e about four months after the lodgment of the complaint by the complainant. The instant case is filed on 28.5.2015. Till the filing of the case, the washing machine of the complainant was not replaced. It is found on record that the O.Ps have taken more than three months for giving an offer of replacement to the complainant and ultimately that offer of replacement of the washing machine of the complainant has not actually been carried out by the O.Ps during the aforesaid three months. The complainant has certainly undergone mental distress and physical harassment. He has certainly appointed washer manfor washing of the clothes of his family and he has certainly paid through his nose to that washer man. The O.Ps have to compensate the complainant in this regard. The sluggishness in the matter of taking prompt action whenever it need is a kind of deficiency on the part of the O.P and for this act of deficiency ,the O.Ps have to pay compensation to the complainant.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

                                                                                           ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P nos. 1 and 2 with a cost of Rs.2000/- and dismissed exparte against the O.P-3.

The O.P nos. 1 and 2 are directed to replace the existing washing machine of the complainant by a new one of similar model free from all defects with sufficient warranty period and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensationfor causing harassment and mental agonyto the complainant ,within a month of this order ,failing which the O.P nos. 1 and 2 will have to refund the entire consideration price of the machine along with compensation amount and the cost as referred to above with interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.

At the same time it is directed to the complainant to hand over the existing washing machine to the O.P nos. 1 and 2 in case of replacement of the same by a new one by the O.Ps and the O.Ps will bear the cost of taking away the existing machine from the house of the complainant.

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

                          Member                                          Member

 Dictated and corrected by me

                                  Member