Judgment : Dt.20.2.2018

Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member

            This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of   C.P.Act, 1986 by Dr. Subodh Kumar Datta alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties namely (1) M/s Raja Bhattacharya, Partner, Ms R.S.System, 4/69A/1 Vidyasagar Colony, P.S.-Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047, (2) Mr. Smarjit Singh, Partner, M/s R.S.Systems, 4/69A/1 Vidyasagar Colony, P.S.-Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047 and (3) M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd., Block:GN Sector:V, P.S.-Electronics Complex Police Station, Kolkata-700 091.

            The Complainant has stated in the petition of complaint, inter alia, that being intended to install a Modular Kitchen placed an order with M/s Godrej & Boyace Mfg Co. Ltd (OP No.3 herein) which was forwarded to their authorised agent M/s R.S.System (Partners of which are O.P.Nos.1 & 2 herein). Subsequently, after inspection of the Kitchen of the house of the Complainant a quotation of Rs.87,519/- was given to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant paid entire amount by Account Payee Cheques dt.27.09.2015 and 5.11.2015 which were received by the M/s R.S.System. The materials have not been delivered though the Complainant visited office of the OP Nos.1 & 2 on several occasions. However, the same had been delivered after six months but the Complainant found that the colour of the materials was not as per the order and therefore the Complainant insisted them to deliver materials as per the order. Thereafter, the OP No.1 & 2 company  delayed in installation of the material and thereafter although they installed material in a defective manner. As per standard practice an inspection was taken place on behalf of the OP No.3 who also found the installation work defective. Several correspondences were made on the end of the Complainant to the OPs but to no effect indeed. Accordingly, the Complainant lodged complaint with the office of  CA & FBP but that too yielded no fruitful result.

            Hence, the Complainant by filing the instant complaint has prayed for direction upon OP No.3 to refund Rs.87,519/- along with interest @ 18%, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost.

            Notices were served upon the OPs but they did not contest and hence vide order No.8 dt.17.4.2017 the case was proceeded ex-parte against them. Subsequently, the OP No.3 preferred a revisional application before the Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal and vide Order dt.8.12.2017 the OP No.3 got opportunity to take part in argument and therefore the OP No.3 filed written notes on argument to that effect.

            The Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief along with copies of documents including money receipt issued by the M/s R.S.Systems.

            In course of argument, the Complainant narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint. Ld. Advocate for the OP No.3 by filing the brief notes on argument has stated in details that their dealer M/s R.S.Systems did not do anything including deposit of money collected from the customer with the OP No.3 since several complaints from different customers were received on making contact regarding such act followed by legal notice the OP M/s R.S. System vide letter dt.24.12.2015 admitted of wrong doing to the public at large. As a result, the OP No.3 terminated the commercial relationship with the OP Nos.1 & 2 and the same has been published in the widely circulated news papers on 21.04.2016 and subsequently, lodged complaint with the police and also filed a case under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. against the OP Nos.1 & 2. Accordingly, it is submitted by the OP No.3 that no cause of action arose against them and therefore the instant complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.3.

Decision with reasons

            The Complainant has stated that he placed order with the OP No.3 and paid an amount of Rs.87,519/- to the M/s R.S. System who was the then authorised dealer of OP No.3. Money receipts issued by the OP M/s R.S. System supports this contention of the Complainant. The Complainant by adducing evidence has stated that installation work of the Modular Kitchen was very much d effective and the same is not acceptable to the Complainant. Copies of letters dt.23.5.2016, 21.6.2016, issued by the Complainant show that the Complainant repeatedly intimated the OPs regarding the defects of installation of the Modular Kitchen. But the said defect has not been removed.

            The unchallenged and unrebutted evidence of the Complainant proved the allegation regarding deficiency in service. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to direct the OPs to refund the amount to the Complainant since the Complainant paid the consideration amount to the OPNos.1 & 2. The said OPs are liable to refund the said amount to the Complainant. In this regard it is observed that no vicarious liability is to be fastened with the OP No.3 since the OP No.3 terminated the agency and initiated criminal proceeding against OP Nos.1 & 2.

            Under such circumstances, we also allow Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- cost of litigation.

            In the result, the Consumer Complaint No.CC/14/2017 succeeds.

            Hence,

Ordered

            that CC/14/2017 is allowed ex-parte in part against OP Nos.1 & 2 with cost and dismissed against OP no.3 without cost.

            The OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.84,519/- within two months from the date of this order.

            The OP Nos.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the Complainant and to pay Rs.12,000/- towards cost of litigation failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. for the default period.