IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

Case No. CC/70/2014

 Date of Filing:               09.06.2014.                                                                         Date of Final Order: 31.08.2015

Complainant:             Aqua Marrine, Prop. Jagadiswar Roy, Vill.& P.O. Bazarsaw, Saktipur,

                                                   Dist. Murshidabad. 

Vs

Opposite Party:           1. Manager, B.T. Enterprise, 4, R.N. Tagore Road, Berhampore,

Murshidabad, Pin -742101.

                                                2. Manager, Multicline, Lalbag Dakshin Darja, P.O &P.S. &Dist.

Murshidabad, Pin -742149.

                                   Present:   Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.           

                                                    Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.           

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for replacing the Water Project Machine or to pay sum of Rs.6, 48,000/- to the complaint and a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is an unemployed youth. For his livelihood he decided to carry on business of production of pure water. For this purpose he purchased a Water Project at the cost of Rs.4,58,000/ by installments from the Opposite Party. The machine was delivered and installed by the OP on 15.06.2013. But on 22.04.2014 the complainant found that the production of the pure water by the installed machine had been reduced from 1000 L/H to 150 L/H. Having been informed by the complainant, a mechanic was sent by the Opposite Party on 18.05.2014. The production of pure water was increased to 400 L/H . The Opposite Party, by issuing Bill, took Rs.5, 000/- for servicing. But on the self same day it was noticed that the machine became stopped. Though the complainant informed the matter yet the OP did not send any mechanic to repair the machine.  The complainant requested to the OP times without number for replacing the inherent defect machine but the OP paid no heed to it. The complainant spent Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing Tank, Submersible Pump, cost for construction of Machine House. The complainant has been incurring huge loss as the machine remains idle. OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the machine.  Hence, the instant complaint petition filed by the complainant praying relief or reliefs as prayed for.

In spite of receiving notice from the Forum, OP No.1 did not appear to contest the case. So, the proceeding runs ex parte against the OP No.1.

The main case of the OP No.2, in brief, is that the statement as stated by the complainant in Para-5 of his complaint is completely false. The OP No.2 is not the manufacturer of the machine. No document has been filed by the complainant regarding the business matter of the OP No.2. This OP has no business transactions with OP No.1 and the complainant. This OP is not responsible or answerable for the defective machine of the complainant . There is no direct allegation against the OP No.2.  He further stated that the OP No.2 is the owner of business styled as “SAFAL INDIA HOME APPLIANCE” at Lalbagh. So, the instant complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.

         The complainant in his evidence  stated that the price of the water project was settled at a sum of Rs.4,48,000/- and he paid the amount to the opposite party No.1 by installments and the Opposite Party No.1 delivered the said machine on 15.06.2013 and installed the same. And when the production reduced then the complainant informed the matter to the OP No.1 who send the mechanic on 18.05.2014 and provided service on charge of Rs.5000/-. Thereafter the said machine become inoperative within the period of warranty but the OP No.1 paid no hid at the utterance of the complainant. The complainant expend incidental charges for the installation of the machine and by self employment tried to earn his living. So the OP No.1 did not deliver the new machine and he is deficient in providing service to the complainant for which he is liable to pay compensation.

                The OP No.2 filed evidence on affidavit which is replica of written version as filed earlier.

                The argument as advanced by the agents heard in full. The proceeding runs ex-parte against the OP No.1

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant ‘Jagadishwar Roy’ is a  Consumer of the opposite party?

2). Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3). Whether the O.P. carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service           

      towards the Complainant?

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether

     the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

                    In the light of discussions herein above we find that the following issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

  1).Whether the Complainant ‘Jagadishwar Roy’ is a Consumer of the opposite party?

                  From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of OP is entitled to get service from the OPs.

 (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad and cause of action took place at Bagarsao, Murshidabad. The complaint valued at Rs.6,48,000/-,Rs.50,000/as compensation ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.    

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

              After perusing the Complaint Petition, Written Version and Evidence on Affidavit and also the documents as filed by the parties in dispute and hearing the arguments it appears that the complainant purchased the said water filter machine from the OP No.1 and the Xerox of bill of receipt was produced in the record by the complainant. The bill of OP No.1 dated –Nil speaks that the name of the customer Aqua Marrine, Name of the product-1000 li/hr price Rs.2,90,000/-, Advance Booking Rs.2,20,000/-, Balance due Rs.70,000/- will have to be paid within the delivery of the goods, Warranty- 1 year. The Xerox copies of bill receipts of Rs.2,28,000/- of different dates is given. The complaint dated 20.05.2014 & 23.04.2014 alongwith the reparing of bill of Nisshan Art Pvt. Ltd dated 18.05.2014 of Rs.5000/- is produced by the complainant to prove his case. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the said machine from the OP No.1 to earn his livelihood but the machine became idle within the warranty period. At the request of the complainant one mechanic of Nisshan Art Pvt. Ltd repaired the machine but it became idle again. Then the complainant several times requested the OP No.1 to repair the said machine but the OP No.1 did not pit no bid at the utterance of the complainant.

      The complainant alleged that the machine in question totally stopped at night on the date of repairing i.e. 18.05.2014. So this complainant demanded replacement of machine within warranty period as the said machine suffers from inherent defects. He purchased the machine in question from OP No.1 but OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the machine.

     The complainant nowhere in the complaint petition stated regarding the manufacturing company of the machine from which he purchased, except two photographs. And when he refused by OP No.1 being the seller of the machine to provide service then he should approach before the manufacturer regarding the non-functioning & inherent defects. No document produced in respect of warranty & features of the machine except the bill of receipt issued by the OP No.1.

     To evade the responsibility the OP No.2 denied everything regarding his involvement of selling, distribution and manufacturing. But he appeared by filing Vokalatnama as the proprietor of Multi Cline, the brand name of the machine which the complainant purchased from the OP No.1. In the written version and affidavit in chief he failed to deny the allegation as a manufacturer but tried to misguide this Forum which is not expected from a businessman / trader. The production of documents regarding sale of spare parts of filter in the name of ‘Safal India Home Appliances’ infur that he is associated with such business and during the acceptance of notice he was the Proprietor of Multi Cline i.e. the OP No.2 but he never showed good gesture by providing service to this complainant after getting notice. He always tried to save his skin. Thus his act & attitude is not upto the mark.

      The act and conduct of the OP No.1 is not like a businessman as he failed to provide service to its consumer which he ought to do. He should approach the manufacturer to replace the defective machine within the warranty period. But not doing so he tried to refuse the service of the machine, which he sold to this complainant.

      From the above discussion we may safely conclude that the OP No.1 is deficient in providing service to this complainant for which he is liable to compensate this complainant for his loss.  

4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could able to prove his case. So, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to refund a sum of Rs. 2,28000.00 to the Complainant.

          Hence, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on ex-parte against the Opposite Party No.1 with litigation cost of Rs.5000.00.

          The OP No.2 is directed to deposit a fine of Rs.10,000.00 in the fund of Consumer Legal Aid Account for his unfair trade practice.

           The OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,28,000.00 the cost of the machine to this complainant within 45 days from the passing of this order.

            No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.

                At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party No.1 shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.

       Dictated and corrected by me.

      Member,                                                                       President,

   District Consumer Disputes                                              District Consumer Disputes                                            Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.                                      Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.