DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

                                         C.C. CASE NO. _42_ OF ___2016_

DATE OF FILING : 10.5.2016                                        DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 25/04/2017

Present                                :   President       :  

                                                    Member(s)    :    Jhunu Prasad  &  Subrata Sarker                                                                                                

COMPLAINANT        :                Sankhanath Chakraborty,s/o Jitendranath Chakraborty of Bhattacharjeepara, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Kolkata-144, S-24PGs.

-VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                   :               1.  The Manager, M/s Great Eastern Trading Company, Kulpi Road, Baruipur-Padmapukur Branch, Kolkata – 144, South 24-PGs.

                                                         2.  Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, Pirojsha Nagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai – 400079.

                                                         3. Servicing Center, Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, Block-GN, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 91.

                                                         4.    The Post Master, Baruipur Post Office, Kulpi Road, Baruipur, Kolkata – 144, Dist. South 24-Parganas.

______________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Jhunu  Prasad, Lady  Member

Complainant’s Case in brief is that the complainant purchased a “Godrej” refrigerator vide specification NO. EDGEDIGI 212 PDS 5.1 from M/S Great eastern Trading company at Kulpi Road, Baruipur- Padma Pukur, Kol- 700144, Dist- South 24 pgs. on payment of Rs. 19,000/-on 13.04.2015.

Thereafter while using the said refrigerator it has became defective and the petitioner informed the concern authority and accordingly one expert visited the residence of the complainant and advised that the main P.C.B  and display P.C.B. needs  to be changed.

Complainant stated that after few months the said refrigerator again started mal- functioning and the complainant informed the same to the concern authority over phone and through e-mails on several dates. Thereafter the O.P. sent one expert to check the said refrigerator and again told that thermostat P.C.B. needs to be changed and also assured that the defect of the refrigerator would be removed but , thereafter the Ops.  did not take any response.

In spite of repeated calls made by the complainant the OP.No.3 also did not pay any heed to make defect free the said refrigerator.

Having no other alternative the complainant sent legal notice to the OP.No.3 as well as the OP. NO.1 & 2, but no response.

 Hence the complainant filed this instant complaint for getting relief.

Issued notices upon the OPs.

In order NO. 2 dated 19.05.2016 this Forum has already decided that OP.NO.4 has no deficiency of service to serve the legal notice upon the Ops. Therefore there is no need to cause service of show cause notice upon the OP.No.4.

In spite of receiving notice the OP. No.1 & 3 did not turn up to controvert the case and therefore the entire allegations made by the complainant remain unchallenged though the opposite party no.1 & 3 got enough opportunity to contest the case by filing written version. Therefore, the complaint case is heard exparte against the OP.NO.1 & 3.

The OP.No.2 appeared through it’s Ld. Advocate and contested the case by way of filing written version.

In Written version filed by OP.NO.2 denied the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint and stating, inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action and the complaint is not maintainable and the instant complaint should be treated as vexatious complaint.

In written version filed by OP.No.2 stated that after receiving one complaint made by the complainant the OP. No. 2 sent one expert to check the said defective refrigerator at the residence of the complainant and changed the main P.C.B., but after passing few days the said refrigerator started malfunctioning and accordingly one expert of the Ops. visited the residence of the complainant and informed that Thermostat P.C.B. needs to be changed and it would be removed at the time of further visit of expert technicians at the residence of the complainant. After docketing the problem in question by the complainant, the technician of the OPs. then and there visited the residence of the complainant, so there is no negligence/ deficiency on the part of the OP.NO. 2, because on every occasions the OPs. provided better service against the allegations of the complainant.

Therefore, the OP.No.2 prayed for  rejection of the complaint.

POINTS FOR DECISION:-

1)Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

 2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS:-

                At the time of argument the complainant filed affidavit- in – Chief, reply, BNA and some Xerox copies of documents to support of his claim.

                The OP.NO.2 also filed Affidavit, questionnaires, BNA and some Xerox copies of documents to support of his claim.

                All the points are taken up together for the consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

                We have carefully considered the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocates for the complainant and also Ld. Advocate for the OP.NO. 2 and perused all the material documents on record.

On overall evaluation of the case record, it is evident that, admittedly the complainant had purchased a refrigerator vide specification NO. EDGEDIGI 212 PDS 5.1 from M/S Great eastern Trading company at Kulpi Road, Baruipur- Padma Pukur, Kol- 700144, Dist- South 24 Pgs on payment of entire consideration. It is also admitted that after passing few days of purchasing the said refrigerator it started problems of malfunctioning and accordingly one mechanic was sent by the Ops. and in spite of  changing the  spare parts the said refrigerator is still found defective.

Facts remain that in spite of several requests made by the complainant, the OPs deliberately failed to replace the refrigerator.

In coming to conclusion regarding the present dispute we have carefully  gone through  the complaint and written version and all material documents filed by the both parties we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(i)(d) of C. P. Act 1986 and entire conduct of the OPs. is illegal, unwarranted and arbitrary in nature and in fact, by adopting such procedure the OPs  committed unfair trade practice u/s 2(i)(r) of C .P. Act 1986. For adopting unfair trade practice the OPs should be penalized.

Moreover, all the allegations made by the complainant are unchallenged, though the OP.No.1 & 3 got chance to contest and to refute by appearing before the Forum. So, the case is heard exparte against OP.No.1 & 3.

Therefore, in light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

In short, the complainant deserves success.

                In the result, we proceed to pass   

                                                                                       ORDER

                That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against OP.NO.2 and exparte against OP.NOs.1 & 3  with cost .

                That the Ops. are jointly & severally directed to replace the said refrigerator with new one of same model with fresh warranty to the complainant within one month from the date of this order  and the complainant shall have to return back the defective refrigerator to the Ops. at the same time.

                That the Ops. are also jointly & severally directed to pay of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain & agony and Rs. 3,000/-as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

                That in case of non compliance of the order passed by the Forum, the Ops shall have  to pay interest on the total decreetal amounts @9% p.a from the date of default to till its realization as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the Ops to the  Consumer Legal Aid Fund .

                Let copy of this order be supplied to the party/parties free of cost when applied for.

                                                                Member                                                                              Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                                Member

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

ORDER

                That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against OP.NO.2 and exparte against OP.NOs.1 & 3  with cost .

                That the Ops. are jointly & severally directed to replace the said refrigerator with new one of same model with fresh warranty to the complainant within one month from the date of this order  and the complainant shall have to return back the defective refrigerator to the Ops. at the same time.

                That the Ops. are also jointly & severally directed to pay of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain & agony and Rs. 3,000/-as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

                 That in case of non compliance of the order passed by the Forum, the Ops shall have  to pay interest on the total decreetal amounts @9% p.a from the date of default to till its realization as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the Ops to the  Consumer Legal Aid Fund .

                Let copy of this order be supplied to the party/parties free of cost when applied for.

                                                                Member                                                                              Member