DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027
C.C. CASE NO. _378 OF ___2015____
DATE OF FILING :21.8.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:03/04/2017
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Smt. Sharmi Basu
COMPLAINANT : Sanghamitra Chowdhury,wife of Sri Asish Chowdhury of 85, Tanupukur Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata – 31.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Bajoria Appliances Private Limited at 20, Chinar Park, Rajarhat, Gopalpur, Kolkata – 157.
2. Sri Nimit Bajoria, Director, Bajoria Appliances Private Limited, at 20, Chinar Park, Rajarhat, Gopalpur, Kolkata – 157.
________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that after purchasing a Burner from the O.Ps, bearing Model no.HB 38G DLX complainant was facing various problems. After intimation to the O.Ps one technician had installed a timer. But the problems persisted, for which she compelled to lodge complaint by e-mail and technician of the O.Ps attended the machine . But the problem was not solved. The case of the complainant is that she is suffering since purchase of the said burner and her suffering went to high when the burner had turned to a toy for its inherent defect. Hence this case praying for refund of the price of the goods i.e. Rs.18,040/-, compensation, cost etc.
The O.Ps file contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that case is not maintainable . The positive case of the O.Ps is that one Abhijit Naskar visited the house of the complainant on 23.1.2015 but he was not allowed to attend the burner. Again one technician Samir Sardar visited the house of the complainant and cleaned the burner on 27.4.2015 and on 8.5.2015 two nos. of big burner ring was changed by the technician and hobs were running in perfect condition. Therefore, the O.ps tried their level best to provide best services as required . The O.P submitted that from the practical view of the machinery it is required to be replaced when the machine is totally impossible to repair and also tally out of repairing and they are always ready to provide all services . The O.P totally denied regarding the manufacturing defect of the machine. Hence, the O.Ps pray for dismissal of the case.
Points for Decision
- Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
- Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken together as they are interlinked.
After scrutinizing the complaint, written version, evidence of both the parties and all other documents brought before this Forum it appears that admittedly complainant has purchased a Burner on 30.9.2014 and it has been denied by the O.Ps that due to technical problem in the goods in question i.e. Burner specifically HB 38G DLX Burner, the technician of O.Ps visited at the residence of the complainant on 23.1.2015 and thereafter till the date of filing of the instant case the Burner in question is not functioning in proper way. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances it is safely concluded that the Burner started problem within 32 months.
In this regard we are highlighting the remarkable decision of the Hon’ble National Commission where Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to observe that if any goods is suffered from any defect within six months from the date of purchase ,then it should be considered as a manufacturing defect and the manufacturer is liable to replace the goods with same description of a new goods or to refund the cost of the goods and also to pay compensation to the complainant for his/her mental agony and harassment. Therefore, in light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the O.Ps have supplied and sold a defective goods with manufacturing defect and the manufacturer ,O.P-1, is liable to replace the same and being authorized dealer O.P-2 also cannot shirk off his responsibility and it is also beyond doubt that after purchasing a goods i.e. a burner from the O.Ps on 30.9.2014 complainant cannot use the goods properly and the O.Ps even being informed about the defective goods have not taken any positive role to replace the goods with a new one or to refund the cost of the goods which obviously caused mental agony, harassment and financial loss of the complainant. So, being the manufacturer O.P-1 and being the seller O.P-2, both the O.Ps are liable to refund the money i.e. cost of the goods and also to pay compensation and litigation cost.
Thus all the points are discussed and all are in favour of the complainant and thus the case be and the same is succeeded.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost.
The O.Ps are directed jointly and/or severally to refund Rs.18,040/- to the complainant and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.15000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, interest @10% p.a shall be accrued on the total decreetal amounts after the stipulated period is over till the date of realization and complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
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.Ps with cost.
The O.Ps are directed jointly and/or severally to refund Rs.18,040/- to the complainant and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.15000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, interest @10% p.a shall be accrued on the total decreetal amounts after the stipulated period is over till the date of realization and complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.
Member President
