DATE OF FILING                    :     20-02-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      21-03-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     28-08-2014.

Amitava Sanyal,

son of late Prasanta Kr. Sanyal

of Ambika Kundu Bye Lane, Howrah Homes Road,

P.O. Santragachi,  District –Howrah,

PIN – 711104.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Concord Services,

represented by its representative,

34/C, Charuchandra Avenue,

Kolkata – 700033. ------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Amitava Sanyal,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, to return the  C.D. Tray of the music system in question with full repairing of the said machine by fixing genuine and original spare parts of  Sony make, to provide one year warranty of free service along with other order or orders as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that the complainant gave his music system to the o.p.

for its full repair with replacement of necessary parts with original and genuine spare parts etc. At the time of lodging the complaint, complainant was given a complaint no. being 4753 by the o.p., being a service centre. On 15-12-2013, o.p. sent one technician who tried to repair the same but on spot he could not do that.  And the machine was taken to the service centre of o.p. On 22-12-2013, the said technician brought the music system in question and told the complainant that it was made in running condition after doing necessary repair through change of spare-parts. For this he also handed over a bill of Rs. 3600/- which includes the costs of spare parts as well as service charges. On enquiry about the genuinety  of the spare parts, said person replied that they only use original spare parts but the box of the said spare parts namely, Lens which was replaced by o.p., does not bear any trade mark, hologram or M.R.P. of  Sony India. However, the money was paid by the complainant. But on 31-12-2013, the music system again went out of order and complainant’s New Year party arranged on 01-01-2014 got totally spoiled due to this dead condition of the said music system. Even after making repeated calls to o.p. requesting for sending technician,  o.p. sent his man only on 05-01-2014 who re-inspected the music system and did some technical works for which he charged Rs. 180/- and according to the complainant it was an illegal action on the part of the o.p. as it was termed as ‘extra for Lens’. However, this time also the said technician assured him that the system would be running free from any disturbance. But again on 13-01-2014, the said music system again went out of order and on 16-01-2014 the same technician was sent by o.p. who tried to repair it for the whole day but failed.  Then he took away the C.D. Tray of the music system which is an important part of the music system and he issued a fresh receipt being no. 1660 / complaint no. 4753  dated 16-01-2014 very unwillingly. He also promised to deliver the said  CD Tray within 4 days i.e., by 20-01-2014 after complete repair. On 20-01-2014 neither o.p. nor the technician, namely Anup Kr.  Dhar had replied the complaint in any positive manner. So, the CD  Tray along with other parts fixed on it is still lying in the custody of the o.p. who did not bother to return the same even by 03-02-2014.  So, the complainant wrote a letter to the o.p. on 03-02-2014 but even after receiving the said letter, o.p. did not bother to reply the same. It is further stated by the complainant that some very emotional past memories of his wife’s musical voice is used to be listened by the complainant as he lost her at her very young age of 49 only. Being totally frustrated and helpless, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs. 

3.               Notices were served. They   appeared and filed  written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

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

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the documents filed by complainant along with his affidavit in reply and questionnaire and noted their contents. We have also considered the written version filed by o.p. It is contended by o.p. in its written version filed on 21-03-2014 that whenever complainant  lodged a complaint with them, technician visited and gave proper service and repaired the music  system but his music system went out of order again and they wanted a last chance to repair the same.  Again on 17-06-2014, o.p. filed another written version stating therein that they are ready to refund Rs. 3,600/- which was received by the technician. But only after filing of this instant case, o.p. is coming up with all sorts of proposals for settlement. When o.p. received the full charge, it is their sole duty to satisfy the complainant completely. Moreover, o.p. has retained his music system component unethically, which they should not have done. When they could not repair the music system properly, they should have returned the charges taken earlier. Only they are interested in monetary gain, customer service is totally immaterial for this kind of service centers. Consumer satisfaction does not at all constitute any part of their business policy. They always treat consumers with all ill motives. Here in this case, o.p. showed gross negligence in discharging duties towards the complainant which caused severe mental agony to him. So, we are of candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed.   Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 87 of 2014 ( HDF 87  of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is directed to return the C .D. Tray along with other parts fixed on it to the complainant after proper  and complete repair with one year warranty within fifteen days from this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged till actual delivery by o.p. 

       That the o.p. is  further  directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and  Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to be paid within one month from this order i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 12,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.            

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.