This is a complaint made by India Infoline Insurance Brokers Ltd. having its office at 7th Floor, AC Market, 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 071 against (1) M/s Ion Exchange (India) Ltd., New Alipore Market Complex, Block-M, Phase-1,5th floor, New Alipore, P.S.- New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, OP No.1, (2) Sanjay Bagchi (Service head), Ion Exchange (India) Ltd., New Alipore Market Complex, Block-M, Phase-1, 5th floor, New Alipre, Kolkata – 700 053 and (3) Mr. Jayanta Rakshit, authorized dealer, M/s Butto Kristo Rakshit, 15, Old, China Bazar Street, Kolkata – 700 001, praying for direction upon the OPs to discharge its obligation by refunding the amount realized in excess to the tune of Rs.72,500/- along with interest of 24% upon the amount and further direction to pay claimant Rs.24,960/- as the cost of the valve which the OP demanded and Rs.1,35,222/- value of the bottle water which Complainant purchased and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant being a company is a juristic person and is a consumer representing the authorized signatory Mr. Anirban Gope and OPs are running business of dealership, sales, installation and maintenance of water purifier RO. Complainant states that one Mr. Supradip Ghosh, being DSA of the ION Exchange, approached the Complainant that they are the world leaders in water purification system and requested the Complainant for installation of their product. Accordingly, Complainant purchased the water purifier. OP No.3 raised the challan on 8.9.2015 at 10.40p.m. beyond office hours. Complainant further states that in spite of repeated requests by the Complainant, OP raised the bill on 21.9.2015 after thirteen days.
Complainant found suddenly that on 28.10.2015 the water purifier stopped functioning and due to non-availability of drinking water Complainant was compelled to purchase water from outside. Complainant sent notice to the OP for correcting and removing the defect, making the service regular so that water can be made available, but, of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.3 filed written version and denied the material allegations of the Complainant. It has stated that Complainant is not a consumer and there is no cause of action. Further, it is stated that dispute arising will be subject to Mumbai jurisdiction. OP No.3 has stated that till now Complainant has paid only Rs.72,500/-. The water purifier stopped working on 28.10.2015. The engineer visited the place and declared that the valve has been damaged which has been replaced with a price of Rs.24,960/-. OP No.3 is nothing but an agent for selling the water purifier and he was wrongly made a party. OP No.3 did not promise to provide service and so he has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Other OPs did not appear and so the case was heard ex-parte against them.
Decision with reasons:
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief against which OP No.3 filed questionnaire to which Complainant made reply. Similarly, OP No.3 filed evidence against which Complainant put questionnaire to which OP No.3 replied.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which he has prayed. On perusal of the record it appears that Complainant has prayed for refunding the amount in excess to the tune of Rs.72,500/-. It appears that Complainant paid Rs.72,500/- as advance for purchase of the machine. OP No.3 who has contested this case has avoided his liability on the ground that he is only an agent of selling the machine and he is not liable for any manufacturing defects. Other OPs did not contest this case. So, in all probability the claim of the Complainant is in accordance with law, provided the machine is returned back to the OP No.3 from whom they purchased.
Second prayer is OPs be directed to pay the Complainant Rs.24,960/- the cost of the valve which OP has demanded. Since the machine has not been corrected and OP No.3 has demanded Rs.24,960/- the cost of the valve. It can be possible only if the machine is repaired at Complainant’s office and its use, if this amount is paid to the Complainant then he can claim refund of Rs.72,500/-. Accordingly, this prayer cannot be allowed.
Further, Complainant has prayed for Rs.1,35,222/- as additional value of the bottled water which he purchased for use of staff members. This appears to be surprising because prior to the installation of the machine the Complainant might have not same mode for providing water to its staff members and this cannot be allowed.
Prayer ( c) is compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, in our view there is no explanation as to why this compensation has been sought. No doubt Complainant suffered due to machine becoming not working, but, that does not mean that Complainant is entitled to compensation of such a huge amount.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that if compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded, it would be justiciable. Further, Complainant has claimed litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. In our view, this litigation cost is also at a higher stage. However, we are of the view that if Rs.5,000/- is awarded as litigation cost, it would be justiciable.
Hence,
ordered
Complaint case CC/150/2016 and the same is allowed in part on contest, against OP No.3 and ex-parte against OP No.1 & 2. All the OPs are directed to make payment of Rs.72,500/- to the Complainant within two months of this order with interest of 10% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within this period, otherwise this amount will also carry interest @10%p.a. Liability of OPs are joint and several.
