Judgment : Dt.17.8.2017

            This is a complaint made by one Kamal Chakraborti of 87/03, A. K. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 090 against IFB Industries Ltd. 14, Taratalla Road, P.S. – Taratolla, Kolkata-88, praying for direction upon the OP to provide the service to the Complainant and make washing machine in working condition and compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant availed AMC for the period from 4.7.2015 to 3.7.2017 which related to maintenance of washing machine. As per Clause No.12 OP is liable to provide 3 mandatory free service in terms of the contract which OP failed. For this machine did not function resulting into sufferance of the complainant.

            Complainant requested OP to provide service as per contract but of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. OP has further stated that OP is liable to provide 3 mandatory services during the period of contract in respect of air condition only and not washing machine, as alleged by the Complainant. These services are provided as per decision of the OPs. Further, OP has stated that Complainant has approached the Forum, with mala fide intention and in order to secure the compensation, so OP has prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where Complainant has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition against this OP has filed questionnaire to which Complainant has filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP has filed affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant has filed questionnaire against which OP has filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point of determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed by him.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction for providing service as per the contract. Xerox copies of A.M.C. have been filed.

            Complainant has stated that as per Clause 12 of the A.M.C. 3 mandatory free services were to be provided. However, on perusal of Clause 12, it appears that the Company of the service franchise or the service agent shall provide mandatory free service per annum during the period of contract. It is not mentioned that such service would be 3 in a year. Further, it is mentioned “In case of A.C. the service agent shall provide 3 nos. of free service which shall be provided with an interval of 4 months during the period of contract”. Nowhere it is mentioned that the service would be 3 in a year.

            Further, Complainant has stated that Complainant suffered a lot due to non-providing of service but he omitted to mention the period during which washing machine did not run as such it appears that Complainant has based this complaint on the basis of vague and ambiguous allegations. Except this there is no document to substantiate the allegation of the complaint.

            Questionnaire and replies filed by respective parties do not establish the allegations of the Complainant. As such, we are of the view that Complainant failed to prove the allegations.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/573/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.