IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                     CASE No.  CC/102/2020

 Date of Filing:                                     Date of Admission:                   Date of Disposal:

   12.10.2020                                              04.11.2020                                    23.04.2024        

Complainant:   Kankana Chowdhury,

                                D/o- Nityananda Chowdhury

Represented by Nityananda Chowdhury

Of 90/1, B.B. Sen Road, P.O.-Khagra,

P.S.-Berhampore,

Dist- Murshidabad,

Pin-742103

                                                                -Vs-

Opposite         1.) The Manager,

                                Himalaya Optical (Berhampore),

                                Of 102, B.B. Gupta Road,

                                P.O.-Khagra, P.S.-Berhampore,

                                Dist- Murshidabad, W.B.(742103)

                                2.) DR. Amit Budrukkar,

Susrut Eye Foundation & Research,

Center, of 25/1, Kalikapur Road,

P.O. + P.S.-Berhampore, Murshidabad,

Pin742101                                      

Agent/Advocate for the Complainants                       :            Nilabya Dutta

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 1            :           Swasti Sinha Bhattacharjya

 Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2           :            S.S. Dhar

Present:          Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.     

                               Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.                                   

FINAL ORDER 

   Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Kankana Chowdhury  (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager, Himalaya Optical (Berhampore) and Anr.  (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainant went to Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Centre for the treatment of her eyes. The doctor after checking her eyes advised to use the spectacles with new power. Be it mentioned here that the Complainant uses spectacle since last 10 years. After getting the new prescription she went to Himalaya Optical for preparing a new spectacles with new power on 28.12.19. The O.P. No. 1 delivered the said spectacles on 3.1.20 after full payment to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. While taking delivery and wearing the spectacles the Complainant  felt uncomfortable and uneasy, and after using that spectacles she was suffering severe headache. Then the Complainant rushed to the shop of O.P. No. 1 and complaint about such discomfort condition as stated above and requested the O.P. No. 1 to examine and /or test the specs for eliminating the aforesaid discomfort. Consequence of which the O.P. No. 1 by its own optometrist re-examined the specs as well as the eye power of the Complainant and after such re-examination it was detected that improper and/or incorrect power fitted in the glass. And as such she was advised for a new specs with correct power. Therefore O.P. No. 1 pursuant to such advice of its optometrist advised the Complainant for a new specs with new power, the Complainant having found no alternative but to yield to such advice of O.P. No. 1. They also assured that they would deliver her spectacle soon and demanded Rs. 4,100/- again for such rectification of leans. While this Complainant argued and wanted to know the reasons for such demand of Rs. 4,100/-, then O.P. No. 1 did not disclose the reason but to force her to pay such amount and behaved rudely. Be it mentioned here further that the spectacle made with wrong and incorrect power by O.P. No. 1 is nothing but a negligence and unfair trade practice. The fault and or defect was made by them and not by the Complainant. After that the father of the Complainant issued several letters requesting to settle the claim but all are in vain.

  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission for appropriate relief.   

The Complainant is a student of Bangladesh and as such the Complainant authorized her father Nityananda Chowdhury to represent the Complainant on her behalf before this Commission.

Defence Case

O.P. 2 is contesting this case by filing written version contending inter alia that after few days, the Complainant along with her father Nityananda Chowdhury came to this O.P. and stated that he had suffered some financial loss due to negligence on the part of the O.P. No. 1. The matter was settled between the Complainant and this O.P. and the Complainant expressed that he has no claim from this O.P. When there is no allegation against this O.P., so his name should be expunged from the complaint.

O.P. No. 1 is also contesting the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the Complainant came to Himalayan Optical for preparing a new spectacle with new power on 28.12.2019 and the said prescription was issued by O.P. 2. O.P. 1 delivered the said spectacle on 03.01.2020 after full payment to the tune of Rs. 20000/-.

When the spectacle was used, the Complainant felt uncomfortable and uneasy then the Complainant rushed to the shop of O.P. 1 and requested the O.P. No. 1 to examine and/or test the specs for eliminating the aforesaid discomfort. Consequently, the O.P. No. 1 by his own optometrist reexamined the specs as well as the eye power the Complainant. The O.P. 1 pursuant to such advice of his optometrist, advised the Complainant for new specs with new power and the Complainant agreed to the proposal of O.P. 1. This O.P. 1 also assured that they would deliver her spectacle soon and demanded Rs. 4100/- again for such rectification of leans. There is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. 1. He prays for dismissal of the complaint.

On the basis of the complaint and written version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point Nos. 1, 2 & 3

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that  the Complainant went to Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Centre for the treatment of her eyes. The doctor after checking her eyes advised to use the spectacles with new power. Be it mentioned here that the Complainant uses spectacle since last 10 years. After getting the new prescription she went to Himalaya Optical for preparing a new spectacles with new power on 28.12.19. The O.P. No. 1 delivered the said spectacles on 3.1.20 after full payment to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. While taking delivery and wearing the spectacles the Complainant  felt uncomfortable and uneasy, and after using that spectacles she was suffering severe headache.

Latter the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant rushed to the shop of O.P. No. 1 and complaint about such discomfort condition as stated above and requested the O.P. No. 1 to examine and /or test the specs for eliminating the aforesaid discomfort. Consequence of which the O.P. No. 1 by its own optometrist re-examined the specs as well as the eye power of the Complainant and after such re-examination it was detected that improper and/or incorrect power fitted in the glass. And as such she was advised for a new specs with correct power. Therefore O.P. No. 1 pursuant to such advice of its optometrist advised the Complainant for a new specs with new power, the Complainant having found no alternative but to yield to such advice of O.P. No. 1. They also assured that they would deliver her spectacle soon and demanded Rs. 4,100/- again for such rectification of leans. While this Complainant argued and wanted to know the reasons for such demand of Rs. 4,100/-, then O.P. No. 1 did not disclose the reason but to force her to pay such amount and behaved rudely. Be it mentioned here further that the spectacle made with wrong and incorrect power by O.P. No. 1 is nothing but a negligence and unfair trade practice. The fault and or defect was made by them and not by the Complainant. After that the father of the Complainant issued several letters requesting to settle the claim but all are in vain.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. 1 submits that the Complainant came to Himalayan Optical for preparing a new spectacle with new power on 28.12.2019 and the said prescription was issued by O.P. 2. O.P. 1 delivered the said spectacle on 03.01.2020 after full payment to the tune of Rs. 20000/-. There is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. 1.

After hearing the submissions of both sides we peruse the materials on record. There is no evidence to the effect that the O.P. 1 delivered the said spectacle on 03.01.2020 not as per the prescription issued by O.P. 2 Susrut Eye Foundation & Research. Deficiency of service on the part of O.P. 1 would be proved if the O.P. 1 delivered the spectacle to the Complainant without following the contents i.e., eye power of the prescription issued by the O.P.2.

From the materials on record we also find that O.P. 1 reexamined the specs as well as the eye power of the Complainant  as per advice of the Complainant and then O.P. 1 delivered the spectacle of the Complainant after rectification of leans. This fact does not indicate that O.P. 1 delivered the spectacle to the Complainant first time not as per the prescription issued by O.P. 2 Susrut Eye Foundation & Research, particularly when we find that O.P. 1 delivered the spectacle of the Complainant for second time after reexamination of the eye of the Complainant.

 Moreover, eye power of the Complainant issued by Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Centre issued on 30.12.2019 and the eye power of the Complainant issued by O.P. 1 are not the same and both are differed from one another in respect of eye power of the Complainant.

In view of the matters discussed above we do not find any deficiency of service or defect of goods on the part of O.P. 1, particularly when we find that the Complainant feels comfort using the spectacle delivered by O.P. 2 for the second time.

In respect of O.P. 2,  Ld. Advocate for the O.P. 2 submits that there is no allegation and no relief against O.P. 2. He prays for expunging the name of O.P. 2. On this point Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits nothing.

In the result the instant case fails.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 12.10.2020 and admitted on 04.11.2020. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.     

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is                                                            

      Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/102/2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

    President

     Member                                                                                                                  President.