DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No.97 of 2015
Date of filing: 08.4.2015 Date of disposal: 23.6.2016
Complainant: Sk. Imanul Islam, S/o. Sadimani, Village & Post Office: Rasulpur, Police Station: Indus, District: Bankura, PIN – 722 205.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Mira Electricals, represented through its Proprietor, having its office at: 14, R.B.Ghosh Road, Burdwan.
2. Bajaj Electricals Limited, represented through its Director, having its office at: 45-47, Veer Nariman road, Mumbai – 400 001.
3. Durgapur Service Centre, represented through its Proprietor, having its office at: Anandamoyee Hotel Lane, beside Anuradha Cinema, Benachity, Durgapur – 13, District: Burdwan.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Saugata Dey.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops did not replace the defective stand fan purchased by him.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased a stand fan bearing product No. VICTOR VP 01-20P/F, Sl. No. 003016 and bearing Batch No. F02410H from the OP-1 dated on 15.4.2013 and manufactured by the OP-2. The complainant paid total consideration amount of Rs. 2,550=00 for the said stand fan and the OP-1 after receiving the same issued a bill in favour of the complainant with a guarantee coverage of the fan for two years. After 15 days from the date of purchasing, the fan stopped to revolve as the head of that fan became lean downwards. When the complainant failed to keep the head of the fan straight by tightening the side screw inspite of several times, then the complainant rushed to the shop of the OP-1 and the OP-1 assured the complainant that they are looking into the matter. Inspite of spending three months they have not taken any measure to repair the fan then the complainant contacted with the authorized service centre of the OP-2 company i.e. the OP-3 and the OP-3 send a mechanic for repairing the same but the said mechanic also failed to repair the same. Thereafter the complainant visited several times to the office of the OP-1 but they neither take any measure to repair the fan nor they pay any heed to the words of the complainant. Moreover, the men and the agents of the OP-1 behaved badly with the complainant. The OP-1&2 knowing fully well sold the defective stand fan to the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice. Moreover, they neither take any measure to repair the problems of the fan nor they replaced the same which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Finding no other alternative the complainant approached before this ld. Forum with a prayer for directing the Ops either to replace the fan of the complainant by a new one or pay a sum of Rs. 2,550=00 to the complainant along with 10% interest on the said amount from the date of purchase, Rs. 5,000=00 for mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost.
The case is contested by the OP-1 by filing written version. It is stated by the OP-1 that the complainant purchased the fan on 15.4.2013 from the shop of the OP-1 and after purchasing the same complainant came to the shop of OP-1 at the end of September, 2014 with complaint of the fan not running. The OP-1 gave him the number of the service centre and asked him to contact with the service centre and they will solve the problem. After few days the complainant came to the shop of OP-1 and said that he could not contact the customer care office and asked the OP-1 to repair. On detection it was found that the switch box of the fan was completely broken and the company provides warranty only for mechanical defect and not for any breakage. Still considering the goodwill of the shop of OP-1, the mechanics of the OP-1 repaired the said fan of the complainant. The OP-1 further stated that again few days later, the complainant again came to OP-1 with the same complaint and said that no mechanics of the customer care came to solve his problem. On being asked by the OP-1 to supply the complaint number, the complainant could not provide the same. Later the complainant filed this complaint on false grounds leveling false and baseless allegations against the OP-1. Even though the OP-1 is not the manufacturer of the fan and only sells fans, manufactured by the concerned companies still then the OP-1 is ready to exchange the fan of the complainant with a new one of the same model considering the goodwill and reputation of OP-1.
Though the notices were received by the OP-2&3 they did not appear to contest the case by filing written version. So the case is heard ex parte against the OP-2&3.
Decision with reasons:-
The complainant alleged that the stand fan in question stopped revolving after 15 days from the date of purchasing of the same and he rushed to the OP-1 for looking into the matter but the OP-1 did not take any measure to repair the same for three months. Then the complainant contacted OP-2 & OP-3 to repair the said fan. Ultimately, the OP-3 sent a mechanic for repairing the same but failed to repair the same. Thereafter the complainant visited several times to the shop of the OP-1 and no fruitful result came before the complainant. So the complainant was compelled to take the resort of this Forum for redressal and prayed for replacing the said fan by a new one and/or to refund back the price of the fan, i.e. Rs. 2,550=00 along with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000=00 and Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost.
The OP-1, the proprietor of the selling shop defended by stating in its written version that the fact of complaining the fan as defect for non-revolvement of the said fan is totally false. It is stated in its written version that the fan was brought to the OP-1 after one and half years from the date of its purchase. Lastly, the ld. Counsel for the OP-1 alleged that the said fan was brought to the shop for repairing in head broken condition. Though the OP-1 shop requested the complainant several times to go before the service centre, the complainant did not bother at first to approach the service centre but approached after three months. The service centre sent a mechanic to repair the said fan but failed to repair the same due to head-broken condition.
The ld. Counsel for the complainant was asked to submit the documents showing the date of complaint to the OP-1, on which date the complainant brought the fan before the OP-1 for repairing, on which date the mechanic from the service centre visited his house for repairing the said fan, where is job sheet of repairing, all of which could not be substantiated by the complainant by documentary evidence.
However, the OP-1 shop stated in its written version that they are willing to replace the said stand fan by a new one, after taking back the old one, for retaining the goodwill of the shop. Accordingly, the case succeeds.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence it is
O r d e r e d
the case is allowed on contest directing the complainant to return back the defective stand fan to the OP-1 within seven (7) days from the date of passing of this order and the OP-1 is directed to replace the defective stand fan by a new one of same model within thirty (30) days from the date of getting back the defective fan from the complainant. In default, the complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
