Samaresh Kumar Mitra,  Presiding Member.

This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that the complainant purchased burner cook Top ix 2 sr. no. of the product R 101071463639 dt.15.10.2014 on 5 years guarantee from Bajaj Electrical Ltd. Inspiring trust, 46-47, Veer Narman Road, Mumbai- 400001 and due to arise problem of 2 nos. bruss burners at first he communicated with customer care on 31.12.2018 vide complain no.31/12/18/0016285805 and as per complain a technician of M/S Bajaj Authorised Service Centre, Konnagore, Hooghly on behalf of opposite party visited the house of complainant on 3.01.2019 and checked 2 burners and communicated with office and technician changed small burner but big burner receive for repairing which will return to the complainant in the afternoon the same day committed by technician and the complainant communicated with technician of opposite party on 4.01.2019 for returning the big burner urgently but technician informed the complainant to communicate with office because he is unable to solve this matter and then the complainant communicated with office on 4.1.2019 C. no. 16654946, 11.01.2019 C. no. 16323011, 16.01.2019 C. no. 16432996 01.02.2019 C. no. 16572018, 12.02.2019 C. no. 16392985, 22.02.2019 C. no. 16729325 but no favorable response reached to the complainant and then the complainant visited with office of opposite party and requested to set up the big burner immediately because one of the family members suffering with serious disease and the opposite party misbehave with him and informed for payment of Rs.350/- as service charge within 5 years guarantee period which is totally illegal otherwise the big burner will not be return and the complainant  again communicated with the office of opposite party by 2 nos. letter with registered post on 16.02.2019 and 22.02.2019 respectively but the letter returned on 19.02.2019 and 23.02.2019 but on 23.02.2019 a message from opposite party send to the complainant to collect the old burner from Bajaj service centre and again the complainant communicated with opposite party by letter with speed post on 9.3.2019 which also returned on 13.3.2019 and to date the complainant not received repairing service or not return big burner from the opposite party.

            Complainant filed the complaint petition praying directions upon the opposite party to return the big burner and set up the same in his house and to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- due to mental torture, harassment, loss of valuable time, communication expenses and other expenses etc.

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

            Complainant filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Ex- parte argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1).In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite party.

2) Both the complainant and the opposite party are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 50,000/- i.e. limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

3).  The case of the complainant is that he purchased burner cook top ix 2 serial no. of the product R 101071463639 dt. 15.10.2014 on 5 year guarantee from Bajaj Electrical Ltd. when the problem arose with the 2 no. brush burners, the complainant communicated it with the customer care on 31.12.2018. According to this complainant a technician of M/S Bajaj Authorized Service Centre, Konnnagare, Hooghly visited the house of the complainant on 3.1.2019 and checked two burners and communicated with the office. The said technician changed small burner but received the big burner for repairing the same and assured to return in the afternoon on the very day. The complainant on 4.1.2019 communicated the technician of the opposite party M/S Bajaj Authorized Service Centre, Konnnagar, Hooghly for getting the big burner but the said technician informed the complainant to communicate with the office as he is unable to solve the matter. The complainant communicated with the office on 4.1.2019, 11.1.2019, 16.1.2019, 1.2.2019, 12.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 but got no response from the opposite party. Then the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and requested to set up the big burner immediately because one of the family members is suffering from serious disease. According to this complainant the opposite party misbehaved with the complainant and enquired to pay Rs.350/- as service charge otherwise the big burner will not be returned. The complainant assailed that the opposite party cannot demand service charge within the guarantee period of 5 years. Lastly the complainant communicated with the office of the opposite party no. 2 with registered post on 16.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 but the letters returned on 19.2.2019 and 23.2.2019. That on 23.2.2019 the complainant received message from the opposite party to collect the old burner from M/S Bajaj Authorized Service Centre, Konnnagar, Hooghly.

   After perusing the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, brief notes of argument and documents in the case record it appears that the complainant purchased two burners from Bajaj Electrical Ltd. proprietor Grihoshri, 195 Indira Gandhi/ Criper Road, Konnagore, Hooghly on 15.10.2014. According to this complainant the two burners of the oven was not functioning properly for a few days then the complainant informed the matter to the customer care of the said company on 31.12.2018. Accordingly a technician came on 3.1.2019 to repair the burners. The technician replaced the small burner but received the big burner for repairing with an assurance to return it in the afternoon of the very day. But the said technician failed to provide the complainant the big burner on that date. That on 04.01.2019 the technician replied that he filed the said burner in the office. On enquiry the office person replied that the complainant have to pay a sum of Rs.350/- for the big burner. According to this complainant the impugned burners have been repaired within the warrantee period. So, the complainant assailed that it is the responsibility of the company and the service centre to repair the burners free of cost. Inspite of several requests the opposite party failed to provide the complainant the said gas burners and it is pertinent to mention that the female staff of the opposite party office misbehaved with this complainant. The complainant wrote letters on different dates for getting the said burner in workable condition but the opposite party failed to provide this complainant the repaired gas burner in a workable condition. As a result the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying directions as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. After getting the notice the opposite party appears on 6.9.2019 by one Sukalyan Ghosh stating that he is unable to appear on 6.9.2019 due to his illness and prayed time for his appearance before this Forum. Since then the opposite party failed to file written version and evidence on affidavit. So, this Forum vide its order dt. 6.9.2019 fixed ex parte hearing against the opposite party.  The complaint petition is unchallenged one .

             It appears from the case record that the complainant purchased Burner Cook Top of Bajaj Electricals on 15.10.2014 but after a few days as the burners of the said oven were not functioning properly. So, the complainant wrote letters to the service  Centre at Konnagore and the company i.e. Bajaj Electricals Ltd at Mumbai 400001. The complainant also lodged complaint through e-mail but his all efforts to repair the said burners within the warranty period became futile. The letter dt. 27.2.2019 to the manufacturing company depicts that the complainant approached the service centre several times but the said service centre asked to pay a sum of Rs.350/- for repairing the said burner as service charge within the warranty period. So, the complainant lodged numerous complaints to the company for taking action against the service centre. The act and attitude of the service centre compelled the complainant to approach before this Forum for redressal. Inspite of receiving notice the opposite party failed to make any reply as such the argument advanced by the complainant heard ex parte.

            Upon hearing the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant and perused the case record it appears that the service centre failed to provide appropriate service in repairing the impugned gas burner within the warranty period. It is pertinent to mention that the opposite party service center also charged a sum of Rs. 350/- for repairing the said burner as a result the complainant being aggrieved approached the said company for taking action against the service centre.

            Lastly, he approached the CDRF, Hooghly for taking action against the said service centre as a consumer of the opposite party. Curious enough the complainant failed to incorporate the manufacturing company as necessary party.

            It is transparent from the case record that the opposite party failed to redress the complainant which tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  

4). The deficiency of service of the opposite party is well established so the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party as ascertained by this Commission.

Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being no. 81 of 2019 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs. 6000/-.

The opposite party is also directed to repair the big burner in question and if it is not repairable then the said burner is to be replaced by a new one within 45 days from the date of this order.

The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony of this Complainant.

At the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite party 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 and necessary action.