Smt. Sangita Chakraborty,

w/o.  Bilwamangal Chakraborty, 4/2, Hiralal Banerjee Road, Flat no. C, 1^st floor Swadha Apart, P.O. + P.S. Shibpur, District –Howrah, PIN – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Great Eastern Appliance Pvt. Ltd.,

            290, G.T. Road, Shibpur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711 102.

2.         Branch Manager Haier Appliances ( India ) Pvt. Ltd.,

            Block EP & GP Plot J-5 Sector V Saltlake,

            PIN – 700091. -----------------------------------------------------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.                  Complainant, Smt. Sangita Chakraborty,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P.

Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) alleging deficiency in providing service against o.ps.  has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund the purchase price of washing machine Rs. 9,000/-, to pay Rs. 6,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.  

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant bought one washing machine from

O.P. no. 1 on 15-08-2011 vide money receipt dated 15-08-2011 manufactured by O.P. no. 2.  The said machine was delivered on 17-08-2011.  The warranty for the said machine was for two years. But by November, 2011 the problem started and complaint was lodged with O.P. no. 1 and it was redressed by the O.Ps. after three months with a minimum visit of six times. Thereafter, again same problem arose on and from November, 2012. Again, complaint was lodged vide docket no. KO! – 1211090105 but nothing happened good till February, 2012 even after as many as eight visits made by the company representatives. At this point, although shop manager assured her that the machine would be changed but the company’s representative told that only repairing would be done without any exchange of the machine in question. But complainant   refused to accept any further repairing work and she wants her machine to be changed. Under the above premises, complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayers.

3.                  Notices were served. O.ps. did not  appear and file written version.

Accordingly, the case was  heard ex parte against the O.Ps.  

4.                  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      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            Complainant has filed

her complaint / petition along with documents duly sworn on affidavit. The machine in question costs Rs. 9,000/- and O.P.s provided warranty for the said machine for a period of two years. But within one year, it started giving trouble and O.Ps. had to take long three months to repair and again same problem arose within in the next year which could not be redressed by  O.Ps. From this, it is crystal clear that the machine has got certain manufacturing defect. Furthermore, even after the receipt of notice of this Forum,  none of them appeared and filed any written version challenging the arguments and allegations of the complainant made out in her petition against o.ps. So, we are of the candid opinion that O.Ps. have nothing to put forward in their favour. And we have no difficulty to the complainant. Accordingly, the O.Ps. are found to be deficient in service. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 288 of 2013 ( HDF 288  of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte               with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 9,000/- to the complainant  within 30 days from the date of this order.

      That the complainant do get an award of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs.

      That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant within one month from this order, the entire amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till acltual realization of the entire amounts.  

      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.