West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/433/2015

Bidyut Kumar Chatterjee, S/O Late Ananta Prasad Chatterjee. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Joy Saha, C/O Saha Electronics. - Opp.Party(s)

Sibaji Shankar Dhar.

16 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. ___433  OF ___2015____

 

DATE OF FILING : 28.9.2015     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:__15.12.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu                                            

 

COMPLAINANT                  :  Bidyut Kumar Chatterjee,s/o late Ananta Prasad Chatterjee of 23/2, Kazi Para Road, P.S. Parnasree, Kolkata – 60.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :       Joy Saha,C/o Saha Electronics, Shop no.16, Behala New Market,

       Beside 14 no. Bus Terminas, P.S. Behala, Kolkata – 34.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The petition of complaint made under section 12 of the C.P Act ,1986 has been filed by Subrata Das against the O.P on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of  the O.P .

             It is the short case of the complainant that he purchased a Den Remote at a cost of Rs. 80/- from the O.P on 23.9.2015 but returning home he found that the Den Remote is not functioning. On the same day complainant against went to the O.P’s shop with a view to change the same or to refund the price of the product but the O.P made a very rude behavior with the complainant and refused to exchange or refund money . Being aggrieved complainant has filed this case with a prayer for refund of Rs.80/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost and compensation.

            Inspite of service of summon the O.P did not care to appear and contest the case, for which the case proceeded exparte against him.

            Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            Before going into the merits of the case it is needed to be mentioned here that even after valid service of notice the O.P has not cared to appear before this Forum and this Forum has no other alternative but to adjudicate the case exparte against the O.P and all the contentions/submissions of the complainant and the documents filed being unchallenged piece of testimony is considered as true.

            It is appearing from the money receipt that a Den Remote is purchased by the complainant on payment of Rs.80/- . So, no doubt the complainant is consumer and O.P is a service provider.

            It is also  fact that complainant purchased Den Remote from the O.P’s shop and on that we find that the goods in question is not at all functioning. On the same day he went to the O.P’s shop with a request to change the same or to refund the price but the O.P did not pay heed to his request. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitation to hold that O.P was duty bound to replace the Remote or to refund the amount of that goods as the complainant went to the O.P with the aforesaid request just on the date of purchasing the same. But the O.P did not do the needful. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P has committed in rendering services to the complainant and it is also beyond doubt that for this inaction of the O.P complainant has to suffer tremendous agony and harassment and O.P is liable to compensate the complainant for the aforesaid reason.

            Thus all the points are going in favour of the complainant.

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the case is allowed exparte with cost .

The O.P is directed to refund the price of the goods i.e. Den Remote amounting to Rs.80/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.300/- and cost of Rs.100/- to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which, complainant is at liberty to file execution case under the provision of Section 27 and 25(3) of the C.P Act.

           

Let a plain copy of judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

                                    Member                                                           President

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

Ordered

That the case is allowed exparte with cost .

The O.P is directed to refund the price of the goods i.e. Den Remote amounting to Rs.80/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.300/- and cost of Rs.100/- to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which, complainant is at liberty to file execution case under the provision of Section 27 and 25(3) of the C.P Act.

           

Let a plain copy of judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

                                    Member                                                           President