West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/39/2016

Raj Hans Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and another - Opp.Party(s)

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/39/2016
 
1. Raj Hans Jain
S/o Lt. Kanak Raj Jain, 53A, Dr. S. C. Banerjee Road, C.I.T. More, Block - B, Calcutta - 700010.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and another
Pirojshanagar, Vikroli, Mumbai - 400079 and Branch Office at Block - GN, Sector - V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700091.
2. M/s. Rita Refrigerator Works
1/1-19, Aswininagar, Baguiati, P.S. - Baguiti, Kolkata - 700059.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sk. Abul Answar MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 18 Apr 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Order No.  9  dt.  18/04/2017        

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a refrigerator on 26.02.2006 from M/s Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd, P-273, Manicktala Main Road, Kankurgachi. The complainant on 23.01.2013 registered the refrigerator under the Smart Care Programme for a period of three  years on and from 23.01.2013 and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,107/- towards AMC. On 22.02.2015 the complainant noticed that the cooling was not taking place in the refrigerator. Accordingly a complaint was lodged on 22.02.2015. A representative of o.p.company visited  the residence of the complainant and advised that the drier needed to be changed and it would cost around Rs.4,500- Rs.6,000/-. Subsequently the complainant noticed that the refrigerator was not functioning properly and lodged complaint on various occasion and since no  relief was provided to the complainant though the period during which the refrigerator was found defective was covered within the AMC period. In view of the said fact that complainant prayed for direction upon the o.p. to replace the old refrigerator by a refrigerator of the latest model or alternatively pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- equivalent to the  the present price of the refrigerator. Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

          The o.p. did not contest the case for which the case proceeded exparte. Complainant in order to so the purchase of the refrigerator from M/s Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd filed documents including the cash memo wherefrom it is found that the refrigerator purchased on 26.02.2006 and the same was delivered on 27.02.2006. The price of the said refrigerator was Rs.12,500/-. The complainant stated that he entered into contact with the o.p.1 on 23.01.2013 and duration of contract was for three (3) years. During the continuation of the said AMC the refrigerator was found some defects which was brought to the notice of the o.ps. It is also found from documents that the representative of the o.ps duly contented the complainant. From the document (Annexure F) it appears that the defects were pointed out by the Service Engineer and the M/c cooling was found in order. Since the complainant stated that the defects were found during the continuation of the said AMC and on perusal of the terms and conditions of the AMC it appears that in case of covering the benefit of AMC in the list of said AMC it was mentioned that the parts which were covered in the said AMC were (1) compressor (2) sealed system jobs: gas charging, evaporator, external condenser, suction line, capillary, drier (3) functional items (a) direct cool- relay, thermostat (b) frost free – relay thermostat fan motor and others. Since from the annexed documents it is crystal clear that the defects as raised by the complainant were not found by the Service Engineer and moreover the refrigerator purchased in the year of 2006 and it is hardly possible for any refrigerator to give service like a new one after the purchase of the said refrigerator in the year 2006. The facts and circumstances clearly established that the complainant wants to have a new refrigerator and alternatively prayed an amount of Rs.45,000/-with the sole object by pointing out some defects which were not found by the Service Engineer of the o.p. company. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case since the o.p. did not provide the service as alleged by the complainant and the case has proceed exparte. Therefore we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the refund of the amount of AMC which was paid by the complainant i.e. Rs.4,107/-.

          Hence, ordered.

          that the case no.39/2016 is allowed exparte against the o.p.1 with cost and without cost against o.p.2. The o.p.1 is directed  to pay an amount of Rs.4,107/- to the complainant with compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of  Rs.200/- within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainants till full realization.

  Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.                                                                                                                                                                                         

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sk. Abul Answar]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.