- Prasanta Mukherjee,
79C, Alipore Road, Kolkata-700027. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Guin Electronics,
96A, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-700026.
- Unique Solutions,
12B, Panditiya Place, Kolkata-700029.
- Bajaj Electrical Limited,
45-47, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400001.
- Bajaj Electrical Limited,
10, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 19 Dated 10-02-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a mixer grinder (Model Winner of Bajaj Electricals Ltd.) from o.p. no.1 on 22.3.11 at a sum of Rs.2100/- only in cash. O.p. no.1 issued a money receipt along with a guarantee card to the complainant with 5 years guarantee. On the very next day the complainant found one of the jars was already cracked. Thereafter, on 23.3.11 the complainant contacted with o.p. no.1 and requested them to replace the same with new one. O.p. no. 1 received the mixer on 18.4.11 and issued a receipt thereto. On 25.4.11 o.p. no.1 requested the complainant to contact with the service centre of o.p. nos.3 and 4 i.e. with o.p. no.2. Accordingly complainant contacted with o.p. no.2. On 11.5.11 one of the service men of o.p. no.2 took the cracked jar from the complainant for replacement and issued a receipt against the same. The complainant visited the shop of o.p. no.1 several times and also visited with o.p. no.2 for replacement of said cracked jar, but nothing was done by either o.p. no.1 or o.p. no.2. Thereafter complainant sent a legal notice dt. 20.6.11 to o.p. nos.1, 2 and 3. But neither of them settled the dispute nor compensated the complainant. Therefore, the instant application praying for replacement of cracked Winner Mixer Grinder with a new one or refund of Rs.2100/- along with compensation and cost.
O.p. no.1 and O.p. nos.3 & 4 filed separate w/vs. Despite service of notice to o.p. no.2 they did not turn up. So the matter was fixed ex parte against o.p. no.2.
In their w/v o.p. no.1 denied all material allegations interalia stated that at the time of selling the article in question to the complainant the o.p. no.1 has properly and openly exhibited the same and the complainant also inspected the same. Complainant asked them to replace the cracked jar. Though it is not the duty of o.p. no.1 to keep their business goodwill they have received the article on 18.4.11 with an assurance to send the same to o.p. no.2. Accordingly they have sent it to o.p. no.2. Moreover, they are not the dealer of o.p. nos.3 and 4, they are only the retailer of electronics goods or articles of various manufacturing company. So if the articles manufactured by o.p. nos.3 an 4 have any manufacturing defect o.p. no.1 is not liable for that reason. So they are not liable to pay any damage to the complainant and for that reason instant case is liable to be rejected.
In their w/v o.p. nos.3 and 4 also denied all material allegations interalia stated that the allegations in complaint petition are matter of record. The guarantee of the product given by them is only for moto and other functional parts. They have stated that the crack in question is post purchase and post use development as a result of mishandling by the complainant. The cracked jar was brought to o.p. no.1 after 27 days of purchase (on 18.4.11). There was no whisper of complaint regarding of product. By their letter dt.25.6.11 addressed to the complainant they have stated that the replaced jar has already been sent to the shop of o.p. no.1. Accordingly, o.p. no.1 informed the complainant by their letter dt.28.6.11. The replaced jar is in their custody and the complainant is to collect the jar. The replacement of the cracked jar was the one time gesture by them, but the complainant is trying to take double game by claiming complete replacement for the entire product. So the complaint should be dismissed as not maintainable.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular.
It is admitted fact that complainant purchased Winner Mixer Grinder on 22.3.11 at a sum of Rs.2100/- only from o.p. no.1 which was manufactured by o.p. nos.3 and 4. It is revealed from record that the complainant has given the mixer in question to o.p. no.1 on 18.4.11. It is not the liability of o.p. no.1 to give the service of any product to the customers. It is the liability of o.p. nos.3 and 4, the manufacturers and o.p. no.2 who is the service centre of o.p. nos. 3 and 4. However, to keep their business goodwill o.p. no.1 has received the cracked jar and accordingly sent to o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 is only the retailer of electronic goods or articles of various manufacturing company. In the instant case also o.p. no.1 is nothing but the retailer of o.p. nos.3 and 4. On 25.4.11 o.p. no.1 requested the complainant to contact with the service centre. On 23.6.11 this o.p. informed the complainant that the cracked jar has been replaced and requested the complainant to collect the same from their shop. Complainant did not give any reasonable answer why he has not collected the same from o.p. no.1. It is not the duty of any of the o.ps. to deliver the mixer grinder to the complainant’s home. So the complainant has failed to substantiate and proved his case and is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest against o.p. nos.1, 3 & 4 and ex parte against o.p. no.2 without cost.
