| Complaint Case No. CC/14/399 |
| | | | 1. POULOMI GHOSH | | 51, Kali Kumar Mukherjee Lane, Shibpur, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah - 711 102 |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. | | 290, G.T. Road, Kazipara More, Howrah 711 102 | | 2. Videocon Inida Pvt. Ltd. | | 39-S-A, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata 700 025 |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 17.07.2014. DATE OF S/R : 21.08.2014. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 06.04.2015. Smt. Poulomi Ghosh , 51, Kali Kumar Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah 711102, Contact no. ( 033 ) 26427865 / Mobile 9432305660....……………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT. Versus - 1. Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., 290, G.T. Road, Kazipara More, Howrah 711102. 2. Videocon India Pvt. Ltd., 39/S/A, Harish Mukherjee Road, P.S. Bhabanipur, Kolkata 700025…………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T Member In Charge : Smt. Jhumki Saha. Member : Shri Subrata Sarker. F I N A L O R D E R - Complainant, Smt.Poulomi Ghosh,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.ps. to replace the refrigeratorin question, to pay Rs. 7,100/- as compensation and litigation costs of Rs. 2,000/- alongwith other relief or reliefs as theForum may deem fit and proper.
- Complainant bought one refrigerator of Videocon India Pvt. Ltd. on payment of Rs. 6,499/- on 16.08.2008 from o.p. no. 1, Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. with a warranty of six years, duly manufactured by o.p. no. 2. Since 13th November, 2013 the refrigerator was out of order.Thereafter complainant informedthe o.p. company, o.p. company recommended their two authorized service providers for repairing the refrigerator in question. The two service providers charged Rs. 2,100/- from the complainant for repairing the set but they failed to repair themachine. Subsequently the service providers came to a conclusion that the compressor of the machine was defective and informed the complainant that itshould be replaced. At that time the compressor of the refrigerator in question was within the warranty period but the o.p. no. 2 did not pay any heed to do the needful.Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, she filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were served. O.P. no. 1 appeared and filed written version. O.p. no. 2 neither appeared and nor filed any written version. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest against o.p. no. 1 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2.
- Upon pleadings of the parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? - Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS : - Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures and noted its contents. O.p. no. 1 contested the case by filing written version and brief notes of arguments along with some reported judgments. It is the specific plea of o.p. no. 1 the refrigerator in question was purchased for commercial purpose. On scrutiny of the available records we observed that after purchasing the refrigerator on making full payment to the o.p. no. 1, complainant could not utilize the machine in question. After few years of purchase of the refrigerator, its compressor went out of order since 13.11.2013 although it is our common knowledge that every reputed manufacturing company provides 10 years’ warranty for the compressor of the refrigerator. But just within five years of purchase, the refrigerator in question became useless due to the compressor which o.p. no. 2 should have changed. O.p. no. 1 deputed their authorized service providers but they failed to solve the problem. It is the responsibility of the o.ps. to give proper service to the customer within the warranty period. But the overall attitude of o.ps. is nothing but harassing which certainly caused severe mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. O.Ps. should have remembered that the success of their business totally depends upon the customer satisfaction. No proper post sale service has been given by the o.ps. to minimize the problem. Further, it is to be remembered that the refrigerator in question was purchased for a medical shop where refrigerator is highly required for preserving life savings drugs. Moreover, o.p. no. 2 has not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted against o.p. no. 2. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. O.ps. have miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. And we are of the 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. 399 of 2014 ( HDF 399 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 1 and ex parte with costs against o.p. no. 2. That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to replace the refrigerator in question with the same model or higher one within 30 days from the date of this order with fresh warranty i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged till actual replacement. That they are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., 9% interest shall be charged till actual payment. No order as to compensation. That 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 In Charge , C.D.R.F., Howrah. | |
