DATE OF FILING : 28-05-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 10-07-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 14-12-2012.
Smt. Suroma Dey,
wife of Sri Sukamal Kanti Dey,
at Natunpara, Thanamakua, Hanskhalipool,
P.O. Danesh Sk. Lane,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711109.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. General Manager,
M/S. Videocon Industries Limited,
14 kms. stone, Aurangabad, Paitham Road,
Chitegaon, Paitham,
District – Aurangabad,
PIN – 431105.
2. Manager,
Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
290, G.T. Road ( South ), P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
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. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant, Suroma Dey has prayed for direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to replace the washing machine in question or to refund the purchase price being Rs. 14,590/- and to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- along with other relieves.
2. The complainant purchased one washing machine being model no.
VIDEOCON VF 55 ARWH/ 5.5 K.G. Front Loading WM from o.p. no. 2 manufactured by o.p. no. 1 on 30-12-2011 on payment of Rs. 14,590/- vide annexure 'A'. But immediately after delivery of the said machine, it was found that the machine was cracked and damaged on the upper side of it. On 07-01-2012, the representative of o.p. no. 2 came and after opening the packaged article, he found the said damaged portion. And on his instruction, complainant on 27-01-2012 lodged one complaint being no. K 12701120 dated 27-01-2012 for the replacement of the said machine. But even after several requests, o.p. no. 2 remained silent. Then complainant lodged a written complaint on 26-03-2012 with o.p. no. 1 but o.p. no. 1 also did not pay any heed to her requests vide Annexure 'B'. Even complainant personally visited o.p. no.1's office and made some requests. But all her efforts went in vain. And finding no other alternative, being frustrated, complainant filed this instant case on 28-05-2012 with the aforesaid prayers. Notice were served upon o.ps. Both the o.ps. appeared and filed written version separately.
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written versions filed by both o.ps. and noted their contents. In para no. 6 of the written version, o.p. no. 2 has specifically stated that they are only the agent of o.p. no. 1 and received the booking for sale of the machine on behalf of o.p. no. 1 and with respect to the delivery of the said machine, it was the sole responsibility of o.p. no. 1, which was made absolutely free of cost by o.p. no. 1. So, at the time of delivery if machine was delivered in a breaking condition or cracked condition, o.p. no. 2 has got no liability or responsibility with respect to that. Moreover, to help the complainant, the o.p. no. 2 always contacted o.p. no. 1 so that complainant may get the machine replaced. And o.p. no. 2 further stated that o.p. no. 1 is also willing and ready to replace the machine in question with a same model subject to the availability of the said model. Moreover, it is o.p. no. 1, who gave warranty to the complainant to provide post sale service in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down on the reverse side of the purchase bill dated 30-12-2011. O.p. no. 1 in their written version also accepted that the machine was found cracked and damaged on the very first instance. And they were also informed about the complainant's prayer for replacement of the said machine by o.p. no. 2. And both the o.ps. stated in their written version that they went to replace the machine with the then available model but it was vehemently refused by the complainant. But at this juncture, we fail to understand that why both the o.ps. could not file any document to show their such good motive. We all know washing machine is a very useful household gadget, and a family requires it very off and on. On the first day, when the machine was delivered, the cracks and damages were found and it was informed to both the o.ps. And till the filing of the case i.e., on 28-05-0212, neither of the o.ps. did take any positive step to redress the consumer complainant, which is nothing but a serious negligence on the part of both o.ps. And we are of candid opinion that it is a fit case for allowing the prayers of the complainant.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 46 of 2012 ( HDF 46 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest with costs against all the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to replace the washing machine in question with a same model and capacity with afresh warranty and in case of non-availability of such model, to refund Rs. 14,590/- within 15 days from this order, i.d. Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged against them till actual replacement and payment. The complainant is also hereby directed to handover the old machine in question to them on proper identification.
The complainant do get an award of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost.
The o.ps. are directed jointly and severally to pay the total amount of Rs. 14,000/- to complainant within one month i.d. this entire amount of Rs. 14,000/- shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum till full realization.
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.
