C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/50
COMPLAINANT : Sri Gopal Sandhukhan,
S/o Lt. Sadhan Sandhukhan,
Shyamsundarpar,
Court More,
P.O. & P.S. Ranaghat,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1(A) Laxmi Enterprise
C/o Chitta Battery
Raj Krishna Pal
Raj Bagan Para,
Ranaghat, Nadia (W.B.)
1(B) Laxmi Enterprise
Tapas Roy
N/L Bajaj Showroom,
Front of Mahananda Hat
Ranaghat, Nadia (W.B.)
2) The Manager,
Kent R.O. Systems Ltd.
Near Rubi Hospital
Akash Tower
Kolkata – 107
3) The Manufacturer
Kent R.O. Systems Ltd.
Plot between Plot No. 8, 9 & 12
Ram Nagar Industrial Area,
Roorkee, Dist. Haridwar,
Uttarakhand 247 667, India
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 30th November, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a water purifier of Kent, manufactured by Kent R.O. Systems Ltd. from the OP No. 1 on 16.12.09 at a price of Rs. 15,950/-. At the time of purchase Rs. 3,500/- was deducted as less as the complainant gave an old water purifier by Aquaguard. So he actually paid Rs. 12,450/-. Accordingly, the OP No. 1 issued one cash memo in his name on the self same date and one warranty card on 17.12.09. It is his further case that after installation the water purifier on 16.09.09 the machine stopped to supply water within 15 to 20 days as it was a defective one. The complainant immediately intimated it to the OP No. 1 over telephone whose representative/mechanic repaired the same. But again after 20 to 25 days the machine stopped to supply water. So he intimated the OP No. 1 who sent his mechanic to repair it, but to no effect as it stopped within 20 to 25 days. So he asked the OP No. 1 to change a new water purifier machine in lieu of this defective one, but the OP No. 1 neither repaired the machine nor changed it. Due to this activity of the OP No. 1 the complainant suffered a lot as he did not get purified water though he is a patient of Dysentry. Thereafter he moved before the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Nadia who advised him by sending a letter on 07.03.11 to lodge a complaint before the Consumer’s Forum. Therefore, having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
As per prayer of the complainant by amendment he has added OP No. 1(A) and OP No. 1(B) instead of OP No. 1. OP No. 1(A) & 1(B) have jointly filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is their contention that one Skylark is the distributor of water purifier of Kent within Nadia District whose office is situated at Radhanagar, P.O. Ghurni, P.S. Kotwali and Laxmi Enterprise is a franchisee of that distributor. They have also stated that the said Skylark opened a stall at Ranaghat Mela where the complainant purchased the water purifier machine from Skylark. Laxmi Enterprise is a franchisee who issued a cash memo on 16.12.09 for this water purifier in favour of the complainant and the said machine was installed by Laxmi Enterprise at the house of the complainant on 18.12.09. Though Skylark was the actual service provider, but on call Laxmi Enterprise visited the house of the complainant on 15.02.10 and repaired the water purifier. The wife of the complainant signed on the service card with full satisfaction. Thereafter, the said technician visited the house of the complainant for service, but the complainant told him that he took service from Skylark. He never complained to the OPs regarding defect of the water purifier. Even they never got any notice from the office of the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Nadia regarding the complaint made by the complainant. Besides this, Mr. Rajkrishna Paul has no relation with Laxmi Enterprise who actually runs a battery shop under the name and style Chitta Battery Inverter. So he has no knowledge about the complaint of the complainant. Rather the Skylark is a necessary party in this case. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed also.
The OP No. 2 & 3 have filed a joint petition in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is their contention that the OP No. 1 is a retailer of distributor of Nadia from whom the complainant purchased the water purifier machine. So all the liabilities rest upon the OP No. 1 being the last seller and the OP No. 2 & 3 have no responsibility in this case. It is also stated by them that they are ready to satisfy and answer all kinds of allegations and also to co-operate in order to facilitate the business of the customer who comes to contact through the processes scheduled by the company rules and regulations. They don’t want to harass or dissatisfy the customer in any way for the company product. Besides this, the last seller has not yet contacted with them regarding this matter. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against them.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written versions filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by all the parties it is available on record that admittedly this complainant Gopal Sandhukhan purchased one Kent water purifier machine from one Laxmi Enterprise on 16.12.09 at a price of Rs. 12,450/- (vide ‘Annexure – 1’). From this receipt it is available that this Laxmi Enterprise is a house of direct marketing and direct sales franchisee of water purifier and accordingly, Laxmi Enterprise sold this Kent water purifier to this complainant. From the documents filed by both the parties, it is also available on record that since purchase the machine was not providing service properly due to which on behalf of Laxmi Enterprise a technician was sent for repair. From the document filed by the OP No. 1(A) & 1(B) it appears that the last service was given by them on 14.04.10. Complainant’s specific allegation is that as the machine was not providing proper service, so he requested Laxmi Enterprise, i.e., the OP No. 1(A) & 1(B) to change the old machine, but to no effect. Complainant, thereafter, moved before the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Nadia who tried to settle the case, but ultimately failed as the OP did not appear before him. From the warranty card (‘Annexure – 2’) it is available that Laxmi Enterprise was the service provider of this machine manufactured by Kent R.O. Systems Ltd. So he cannot deny his responsibility to provide proper service to this complainant as the machine was a defective one since inception. The OP No. 2 & 3 have categorically stated in their written version that the OP No. 1, i.e., Laxmi Enterprise did not contact with him about this allegation in this case. It is also stated by them that they are always ready to satisfy the customer. No oral evidence is adduced by any of the parties in this case.
Therefore, on a careful perusal of the facts of this case along with the annexed documents and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for all sides it is established that the machine purchased by the complainant from the OP No. 1(A) & 1(B) was a defective one since purchase. It is also established that Laxmi Enterprise repaired the machine twice by its technician, but ultimately the defect was not removed. So it is the duty of Laxmi Enterprise to remove the defect or to change the defective one as he sold a defective machine to the complainant. The OP No. 2 & 3 are the manufactures of this machine who cannot avoid their liability for supply of a defective machine to Laxmi Enterprise to sell it to a customer, i.e., the complainant. Considering all these, we have no hesitation to hold that all the OPs are jointly or severally liable for supply of this defective one to this complainant and it is their duty to redress the grievance of the complainant which they have not fulfilled. We do further hold that as the complainant has become able to prove his case, so he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/50 be and the same is decreed on contest against all the OPs, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 12, 450/- to the complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- for mental harassment caused to him + Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 15,450/-. All the OPs are directed to make the payment of the said decretal amount to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment after taking back the old defective machine, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
