In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.284/2011.

1)                   Bidhan Ch. Das.

            20/4/1, Hridaypur Stn. Road,

            P.O. Hridaypur, P.S. Barasat, 24 Pgs(N), Kol-700127.                             ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Manager / Authorized Officer  representing

            Bajaj Finance Ltd.

            C/o  Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.

Anuj Chamber, 4^th Floor, 24, Park Street,

P.S. Park Street,  Kolkata-16.               

2)         Manager / Authorized Officer  representing

            Bajaj Finance Ltd.

            C/o  Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.

234, AJC  Bose Road, Kolkata-20.

3)         Manager, M/s Luminous Power Technologies Ltd.

21C, Ekdalia Place (ground floor), Kolkata-29. 

4)         Manager, Euro India Marketing Agency,

Rani Park, Madhyamgram, Charmatha, 24 Pgs(N)

* Expunged vide order no. 6 dated 18/01/2012.                                                   ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   21    Dated  23-10-2013.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased an inverter along with Exise Battery and Luminous machine from M/s Euro India Marketing Agency, Rani Park, Madhyamgram, Chowmatha, 24 Pgs (N) on 14.5.06 vide R. No.7333 dt.14.5.06.       There was a collaboration of the seller i.e. o.p. no.4 with M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. C/o Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. (o.p.1).

            It was decided the total price would be Rs.14,000/- and the payment would be in 10 instalment. At the time of finalization o.p. no.4 demanded Rs.2000/- as cost and the rest of Rs.12,000/- payable @ Rs.1500/- through 8 post dated cheque in favour of M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd.  

            At the time of booking on 14.5.06 complainant paid Rs.500/- and at the time of delivery complainant had to pay Rs.1500/- on 11.6.06 and issue 8 P.D.Cs @ Rs.1500/- each. The price thus charged was Rs.13,000/- and they charged instalment charge Rs.500/-. The item was delivered on 11.6.06 and complainant had to pay Rs.1500/- , Rs.500/- in cash and 8 P.D.Cs of Rs.1500/- each.

            The set carried two years warrantee and the arrangement of finance was made by the seller company. The set was defective and from the day one. After a week of installation the set got defective and the matter was brought to the notice of the seller. The seller sent mechanic to repair the set but in vain. The set could not be repaired and has been lying unused till now. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.ps. nos.1, 2 and 3 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. In the w/v o.p. nos.1 and 2 had mentioned that the complainant was supposed to pay 12 instalments, out of 12 EMIs, the complainant paid 4 EMIs in advance and the said advance EMI would be adjusted at the end of the contract. Post dated cheques (PDCs) towards payment of EMI 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 got dishonoured for the reason “Payment stop by Drawer”. Therefore, o.p. prays for Rs.24, 800/- (Rs.7500/- towards instalment due and Rs.17,300/- towards penal charges). O.p. no.3 also filed w/v and denied all the material allegations and also mentioned that the complainant had never made4 a single complainant to o.p. no.1. O.p. no.3 had also mentioned that the case is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose on 14.5.06. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the UPS amounting to Rs.14,000/- (Rs.13,500/- as cost of the UPS and Rs.500/- as instalment charge). But the complainant filed the order slip dated 14/05/2006. In this order slip it is clearly mentioned that ‘This order slip cannot be treated as bill / cash memo. This order is done as per the condition overleaf’. Complainant has annexed the photocopy of order slip without photocopying the reverse side of it.  Complainant has alleged in his petition that the set got defective after a week of installation and that was brought to the notice of the seller (para 12 of the complaint). But as the post dated cheques were returned, the complainant paid the 1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd instalment by cash on 27.8.06, 6.10.06 and 10.10.06 respectively (annex-2A). If the machine was got defective within a week of the purchase i.e. 14.5.06, the complainant did not pay the instalments on 27.8.06, 6.10.06 and 10.10.06. No single document was furnished by the complainant that he informed he seller about the defective machine. After a prolonged period on 31.1.11 the complainant lodged his complaint to Bajaj Finance Ltd. 2^nd Floor, ShantiniketanBuilding, Camac Street, Kol-17 and on 9.2.11 to Bajaj Finance Ltd., 232 B, AJC Bose Road, Kol-20. It should be mentioned that these letter were sent to Bajaj Finance when o.ps. demanded the due amount (5 EMI x Rs.1500/-) of Rs.7500/- from complainant. Complainant rather sought their advice complaining that the machine was lying defective. On 2.3.11 complainant lodged his complaining before CA 7 FBP Deptt.

            It is clearly mentioned in the order slip that the warranty was given for 2 years. But no scrap of document was filed that the complainant lodged the complaint for servicing. Moreover, complainant failed to pay t he consideration amount which was financed by o.p. nos.1 and 2. Complainant has enough scope to lodge his complain within warranty period. So the complainant has failed to substantiate his case.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest as o.p without cost against o.ps.