IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 91/S/2014. DATED :31.03.2016.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBERS : SMT. PPRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &
SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.
COMPLAINANT : MANAB BISWAS,
S/o. Late Sailendra Kr. Biswas,
South Bharat Nagar, Ananda Marg Lane,
Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734004.
Mobile No. 98326 92670.
O.Ps. 1. : IFB INDUSTRIES LIMITED,
(Home Appliances Division),
4, Taratola Road, Kolkata – 700 088,
Ph. – 30489206/9297.
- : Local Address : S. R. ELECTRONICS,
Hakimpara, Swamiji Sarani, Siliguri – 734 004,
Dist.- Darjeeling, Ph. – 0353 2520093.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.
FOR THE OP Nos.1 & 2 : Sri Soumabha Saha, advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The complainant’s case in brief is that on 19.04.2012, he purchased a microwave oven from the OP, and there was an annual maintenance contract for two years for the said article. The complainant is entitled to obtain four servicing over the said two years, at intervals of six months. The microwave oven was beset with problems on 17.08.2012, and he approached the service centre, who took it for repair, and returned it to him after repair. Soon, the oven again became dysfunctional, and though he approached the OP for redress, yet he obtained no relief. Accordingly, he filed this case praying for refund of the amount that he had paid to the OP, and he prays for some other reliefs as well.
The OP has contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant. OP has stated that on 17.08.2012, on 18.10.2012 the OP has given free service to the complainant. Thereafter on 12.02.2014 the OP gave free service and in this way they administered four services as per Annual Maintenance Contract to the
Contd……P/2
-:2:-
complainant. Again on 14.07.2014 the OP paid service to the complainant, but they did not pay anything. Accordingly, the complainant has filed frivolous case against the OPs. Hence, OP has prayed for dismissal of this case.
Points for decision
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
To prove the case the complainant has filed the Xerox copies of the following documents :-
1. Invoice cum Receipt ( Annexure-I).
2. AMC paper (Annexure-II).
3. AMC History Card ( Annexure – III).
Complainant has not filed examination in chief by way of affidavit. Even the complain
OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed Examination-in-Chief by way of affidavit.
Complainant has filed written notes of argument.
OPs have also filed written notes of argument.
Even the complainant did not file original document before this Forum to enable this Forum to examine that OPs did not give him free service.
On the other hand from the Examination in chief of OP Nos.1 & 2, it appears that they have offered him free services for four times i.e., on 17.08.2012, 18.10.2013, 12.02.2014 and lastly on 14.07.2014 the OP gave service, but the complainant did not pay cost of service and denied payment to the technician and refused to sign the job card.
So, after going through the material on record, placed by both sides before the Forum, we are of strong conviction that material in record is insufficient to unearth the complaint lodged by the complainant.
Accordingly, the case of the complainant fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.91/S/2014 is dismissed but without any cost.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
