DATE OF FILING : 19-02-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 18-03-2014
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26-11-2014.
Sri Sanjib Mitra,
son of Sri Patit Paban Mitra,
residing at 67, S.N.M. Ganguly Road, Batore,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711 104.
at present residing at
38/3, Kankrapara Lane, P.S. Sibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 104. ………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
M/s. Perfect
( Furniture Bazar ),
represented by its Manager,
246, N.S. Road,
Howrah – 711 101. ……………………………………………...……OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
Complainant, Sanjib Mitra, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to replace the defective bedstead or to pay back the entire amount of Rs. 47,000/- so paid by the complainant, to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/-as litigation costs with other relief or reliefs as theForum may deem fit and proper.
Brief fact of the case is that complainant bought one bedstead with one table from o.p. on payment of Rs. 47,000/- in total vide tax invoice dated 06-03-2013 Annexure ‘A’. It was assured by the official of o.p. that the bedstead is made of good quality Malaysian wood with white colour and it would last long. But within very short period, complainant found that its foot has broken and split over its body. So, on 01-10-2013 complainant informed o.p. over telephone with a request to visit his residence for inspection. And after many attempts made by the complainant, o.p. sent one personnel on 19-10-2013. That representative after much inspection told the complainant that he could only do some pudding and colour work over the damaged area as the product itself was a defective one. And their responsibility towards post sales service ended there.Complainant became frustrated as only within six months of purchase, the product got damaged which could not be managed only by pudding and colouring. Complainant requested for replacement of the product but o.p. simply refused to do that. Complainant even sent a lawyer’s notice dated 26-11-2013 but o.p. remained silent. Being frustrated and aggrieved complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
Notice was served upon o.p. O.P. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.
Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
Whether the complainant isentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. O.p. in its written version has denied and disputed all material allegations of the complainant. It is the specific plea of the o.p. that complainant bought the article after being fully satisfied about its quality and as the article is a Chinese product, the importer of the said article does not provide any warranty or guarantee for the product. So, mere pudding and colouirng work can be done by o.p. It cannot replace or return the purchase price to the complainant. Here we take a pause. Can it be the law of the land that one sidewould enjoy fully and the other side be deprived of it ? O.p. took entire consideration price of Rs. 47,000/- for the bedstead & side table from the complainant but complainant could not enjoy the product perfectly even for one year. In the money receipt provided by o.p. dated 06-03-2013, nowhere it is written that the product is a Chinese product and does not have any warrantee or guarantee. Complainant has filed this case within two years of the purchase and we have no difficulty to adjudicate the same. O.p. may run its business whimsically and arbitrarily but it should not allowed to be perpetuated. For any purchase, a normal two year guarantee or warrantee is provided by the seller. O.p. might have forgotten the same. A product of such a high value of Rs. 47,000/- getting damaged due to its defective material and for that complainant is to suffer ? Complainant has believed the assurance given by the personnel of o.p. at the time of purchase. Is it believable that even after knowing the fact that the product is Chinese made and meant for ‘use and throw’, complainant has paid such a big amount of Rs. 47,000/-. Definitely complainant was assured about its quality of being Malaysian wood made. That iswhy, complainant paid such a big amount. Now o.p. is trying to wash out their hands from all responsibilities. Complainant has been thrown at the mercy of the o.p. And o.p. should know that time has changed.They should know the meaning of the term ‘sellers’ venditor’. Here in this case, o.p.’s negligent attitude has caused tremendous mental pain to the complainant. Accordingly, we hold that o.p. is deficient in providing service. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 83 of 2014 ( HDF 83 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 47,000/- to the complainant and complainant is also directed to return all articles so purchased from o.p.
That o.p. is further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.
That the o.p. is directed to pay the entire decreetal amount of Rs. 52,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum till full realization.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
