IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 144/2016 .
Date of Filing: 27.09.2016. Date of Final Order: 16.03.2017.
Complainant: Jiyaul Haque, S/O Late Johor Ali Biswas, Vill.&P.O. Ratanpur, P.S. Samserganj,
Dist. Murshidabad.Pin 742202.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Manager, Berhampore Godrej Service center, Kalibari Road, Modhupur,
P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin -742101.
2. R.P. Electronics, Prop. Rajes Bhakat, Vill. Ghoshpara, P.O. Dhuliyan,
P.S. Samserganj, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742202.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Pranati Ali Presiding Member.
Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 for return of money of the refrigerator along with compensation amount is in total Rs.1,00,000/- from the OPs.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased one refrigerator in the name of his wife on 12.08.2013 vide Memo No. M.M.DGE 23DM4 SL No. 1203210087 paying Rs. 15,500/- with 10 years warrant from the OP No.2. But just after seven months door of the refrigerator was damaged and the complainant met the OP No.1/Manager, Godrej Service centre, Berhampore, who did not attempt to solve the problem. According to the complainant several times he complained to the OP, but he was harassed by the OP. So, he came to this Forum for proper redress.
On the other hand, in spite of receiving notice the OP No.1 did not turn up in this case and the notice sent to the OP No.2 first time returned back with remark “Insufficient address” but second notice with same address returned back with remarks “refused”. So, the proceeding runs ex parte against the OP Nos. 1&2 as they willfully avoided the proceedings.
The only point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and or whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not.
Decision with Reasons.
The complainant has submitted some documents in support of his case.
Perused all the documents on the record, we observed that the complainant starts complaint to the OP from seven month of the purchase. The complainant made complaint six times in total but the OP did not response to the complainant. This act of the OPs is a clear example of negligence/deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As because the OPs are avoiding to meet the complainant to hear the problem, even one of the OP is the service centre, who is for giving service. Both the OPs are absent here also to proceed the case. For that we can assumed that the OPs are not fair in this work, so, they hide themselves from the consumer after selling the product. But the Ops cannot avoid the responsibility to give the service to the complainant as a service provider and or seller. So, the Ops are liable to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
On the basis of above discussions and considering the documentary evidence on the record, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get purchased amount of refrigerator a sum of Rs.15,500/- along with Rs.2000/- as litigation cost from the OPs.
Hence,
Ordered
that the consumer complaint No.144/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed ex parte against the OP Nos. 1&2 with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The OPs are directed to pay back the purchased amount of Rs.15,5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the OP has to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary/registered post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
