DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

 C.C. No.332/2018

Date of Filing:                       Date of Admission:                 Date of Disposal:

    21.08.2018                           31.08.2018                                          15.05.2023

P R E S E N T                 :-    Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.

                                        :-     Sri.  Abhijit Basu      …………………. Member.

          JUDGMENT

          Complainant filed this case as per  of consumer Protection Act.

          The brief facts of the case is complainant purchased one refrigerator from O.P. No.1 on 04.04.2017 for personal use vide model No. HAIRE HRD 2157 PSLRK SILVER LIANA REF SET, Vide Invoice No. 36/SA/1716/00226  at a total consideration money of Rs. 15,500/- only with warranty of one year from 04.04.2017 to 04.03.2018. The O.P. No.1 received and acknowledge the same. After purchase the said Refrigerator the O.P deliver the same and the men and agent of O.P. No.2 installed the same. Immediate after few days the said refrigerator started to malfunctioning. The complainant contacted to O.P members and informed about the problems and requested for do needful but in vain. Complainant went along with defective refrigerator on 18.09.2017 and again requested for replace the same. After prolong discussion the O.P agreed to replace the same and replaced the same. But again after four or five days the new refrigerator started to malfunction. Then again complainant contact with opposite parties but in vain. On 28.09.2017 complainant along with defective refrigerator return to the opposite party No.1 and claimed for replacement. O.P. No.1did not agree with the proposal of complainant lastly O.P. No.1 assured that the men and agent of O.P. No.2 will cure the defect, subsequently the O.P agreed

Contd/-2

C.C. No.332/2018

:: 2 ::

to replace the defective refrigerator (The refrigerator was placed at the custody O.P No.1 by the complainant) but not with the same model and same company for that reason the complainant disagree to accept the refrigerator. One legal notice was served by the complainant on 30.11.2017 asking for new refrigerator or to refund money but the O.P did not pay any heed. Compelling circumstances, the complainant filed this case.

          After service notices upon the O.P members the O.P. No.2 did not pay any heed to appear before this commission. O.P. No.1 appeared and filed written version and also contested the case till argument. The O.P. No.1 submits that the O.P. No.1is the dealer of consumer durable goods. O.P. No.1 purchased the refrigerator from O.P. no.2and for sale the same. The manufacturer is liable for the same after sale service. The O.P. No.1 alleged that the complainant was agreed to take the refrigerator of O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 had arranged for subsequent placement but complainant want to replace other manufacturer, such demand could not be accepted by the O.P- members. O.P. No.1had paid cost of the product in dispute to O.P. No.2. The products reached the answering O.P. No.1as ‘tested ok’. Therefore without any testing O.P. No.1 sold the product. O.P. No.1 submits that he has no liability. The O.P. No.1contested the case. This case is within pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this commission.

Issue framed for the purpose of decision

1. Whether the case is maintainable or not?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs in this case or not?

Reason for Judgment

          Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and character of the case all the points are interlinked with each other a such all the points are taken up together for consideration.  The O.P. No.1 purchased the product from O.P. No.2. O.P. No.1 sold the refrigerator to the complainant. The O.P. No.1ought to check the refrigerator before sale the product. O.P. No.2 is also liable for manufacturing defect as because when the product manufactured and before sale and / placed at the open market for sale the same there is  also responsibility of the manufacturer. It is also the responsibility of the dealer and seller before sale the product he/ she should be checked the product which is selling in the market. Hence, complainant is a consumer of O.Ps as per Consumer Protection Act and the O.P. members are service provider. But O.P. members did not provide their service which is negligence on the part of opposite parties and deficiency of service.

          Contd/-3

C.C. No.332/2018

:: 3 ::

Hence,

                it is ordered,

that the case being No. 332/2018 be and the same is allowed with contest. The opposite parties are jointly and severally replace the refrigerator which model and company the complainant purchased in good condition alternatively return the purchased amount Rs. 15,500/- to the complainant with 6% interest from the date of purchase within two months from the date of this judgment. Failing which the complainant has liberty to tile execution case as per law.

            Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

Dictated & Corrected by me                      

Member

Member                                                                Member