This is a complaint made by Sunil Kr. Dubey, son of Late B. N. Dubey, residing at 73, D. H. Road, P.S.- New Alipore, Kolkata-700 038 against Galaxy Sports, Cetury Towers, Shop No.1, 45, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 017, at present 17, Sarat Chatterjee Avenue, near Menoka Cinema Hall, P.S.-Tollygunge, Kolkata-700 029, praying for an order for providing a new tread mill in full working condition, Complainant also prayed for cost of compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant Sunil Kumar Dubey purchased a new motorized treadmill of Afton make through Bajaj Finance Ltd. from the OP on 29.6.2012.

            On 11.5.2016 the said treadmill suddenly stopped functioning. Complainant lodged a complaint to the Service Engineer of Galaxy Sports. In pursuance of which the service personnel went and charged Rs.450/- and further for repair of the treadmill Rs.8,700/- was charged. Thereafter, on 7.6.2016 three components of the treadmill the P.C.Board, the motor and the transformer were taken away for repairing. On 11.6.2016 service personnel visited and fitted components taken away earlier for repair but treadmill could not function. Said components were again taken away. On every occasion the service personnel assured the complainant that the said treadmill will be restored in full working condition.

            It was assured by the Service Engineer that he would visit and diagnose the problem of the treadmill. But, he came after different personnel sent by him made the matter complicated. After that Complainant contacted the OP. But of no use. So, Complainant sent a notice stating that his treadmill be repaired and Rs.8,700/- be adjusted. However, OPs did not repair the treadmill and also did not refund Rs.8,700/-. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denied the material allegation of the complaint. Further, OP has stated that on 7.6.2016 the three components of treadmill, the P.C.Board, the motor and the transformer were taken away for repair is not admitted. They have also denied that there was payment of Rs.8,700/-. So, OP has prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons:

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.

            Thereafter, OP put questionnaire. Against the affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant replied on affidavit. After that Complainant submitted written argument and OP also submitted written argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            First prayer of the Complainant is repairing of the treadmill. Complainant has filed receipt of vouchers that he paid Rs.28,375/- for purchasing the treadmill on 29.2.2012. Complainant has also filed document to establish that he paid Rs.8,700/- to Galaxy Sports and also Rs.450/-. No warranty card is filed by the Complainant. Further, it appears that the Complainant paid Rs.8,700/- to Galaxy Sports.

            As such, since the treadmill could not be repaired by the OP, it became the bounden duty of the OP to refund the amount of Rs.8,700/- which Complainant paid for repairing of the treadmill.

            Complainant has also prayed for cost of compensation of Rs.30,000/-.

            However, we do not find any ground for allowing compensation.

Hence,

ordered

              CC/348/2016 and the same is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.8,700/- to the Complainant within two months of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 12%p.a.