Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 27.02.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to replace the machine by a new functioning machine of the same model and at the cost of the same machine at the present market value.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as Litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased the whirlpool washing machine model 12074 vide annexure – I from opposite party no. 2 i.e. Aditya Vision, Bailey Road, Patna. The said machine worked properly for some time only and from July 2013 it become dysfunctional. Thereafter the complainant reported the matter to Patna call center several times and when no response was received from Patna call center, then he registered a complaint being complaint no. PT – 09130016115 dated 08.09.2013. Thereafter the complainant was assured that expert technician will visit the machine within 48 hrs. but no body visited and attended the complaint till 16.10.2013. Thereafter on 17.10.2013 the representative of opposite party no. 1 informed the complainant that the parts of aforesaid model in question which has been purchased by the complainant was not available. However on 17.10.2013 representative of opposite party gave the complainant an offer to get the machine exchanged after paying the depreciation charge @ 40% of its value on 18.10.2013. The complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties but they did not responded however in the first week of November 2013 the complainant was advised to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,356/- as depreciation cost for getting other model being Agitronic model no. 652 after exchanging the old. Thereafter the complainant on 13.11.2013 deposited the aforesaid amount vide Bank draft dated 12.11.2013. Thereafter he was assured that the second model of the aforesaid washing machine will be made available to the complainant in the local showroom. The complainant continued to remind opposite parties. He did not received any response from the opposite parties.
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement ( reply) has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. In later part of Para – 3 following facts have been submitted, “he has completed all formality and given his choice to see book let. Unfortunately at the time his choice colour and model was not available. When it has come the opposite parties have given delivery of his machine. It is admitted fact that he deposited draft on 13.11.2013 and received machine on 10.12.2013. it is clear he has got new machine within days. There is internal process in this matter. So some time has consumed in this process.”
It has been further stated that the complainant has already received the new model vide annexure – 2 the copy of which has been annexed. This fact has not been denied by the complainant in his rejoinder etc.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
At the time of hearing of this case, the counsel for the opposite parties has asserted that the complainant has received the new model within few days of the deposit of Rs. 6,356/- by way of exchange price.
The grievance of the complainant is that he has purchased aforesaid washing machine in September 2011 vide annexure – 1 and the said machine become dysfunctional completely from July 2013 but despite his repeated request no action was taken by the opposite parties with regard to redressal of the complainant and lastly on 17.10.2013 the complainant was advised to deposit the exchange amount and as such the complainant was forced to opt the exchange offer for another model.
It further appears that despite complainant deposited the exchange amount of Rs. 6,356/- through Bank Draft dated 12.11.2013 the complainant was given the aforesaid machine on 09.12.2013. There is no chit of paper to show that the machine of the choice of the complainant was not available in the local shop from 12.11.2013 to 09.12.2013. Thus it is clear that the complainant has been put to harassment by opposite parties after some time of the purchase of machine in question i.e. from July 2013 and he continued to be harassed even after depositing the exchange amount. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties has resulted in harassment of the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to receive compensation as the aforesaid facts disclose the deficiency on the part of opposite party.
As the complainant has received another model of machine hence we are not passing any order in this regard.
Hence, opposite party no. 2 is hereby directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation as well as litigation costs within the period of one months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
