- Manash Mukherjee,
2/1, Sahid Nagar,
Dhakuria, Kolkata-31. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd.
10, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-13.
- M/s Anandamela Shop,
G-9, Gariahat Market,
Kolkata-19, P.S. Gariahat. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 20 Dated 22/05/2015
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant has purchased a ‘Bajaj Platini PX 92 Aircooler’ from o.p. no.2 on 30.5.12 at a consideration of Rs.7800/-. A photocopy of the cash memo of the said machine has been annexed as annex-P1 by complainant with the petition of complaint. Complainant further stated that the said machine was not functioning properly from the very beginning and in spite of repeated communications to o.p. no.1 no improvement has been achieved by complainant in respect of the machine in question. Such communications has been annexed as annex-P2 by complainant with the petition of complaint. In this context it is to be mentioned that o.p. no.1 issued a warranty of one year from the date of purchase i.e. 30.5.12 and photocopy of which has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint. In spite of several communications as stated by complainant no improvement has been seen in the said machine in spite of issuance of warranty of one year by o.p. no.2 in respect of the machine in question. Under such circumstances, complainant filed the case with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.1 appeared before the Forum and contested the case by filing w/v whereas o.p. no.2 did not contest the case by filing w/v in spite of receipt of notice and as such, matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.2.
Ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1 submits that there is no deficiency on their part since there is no deficiency in respect of the machine in question. During the argument ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1 has mentioned the averment as has been made by complainant in para 4 and 5 of the petition of complaint and ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1 also stated that complainant has never stated in respect of the defect of the machine in particular where as complainant stated that the machine was not functioning properly, but he never mentioned in respect of the specific non functioning of the machine and surprisingly enough ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1 stated that in the entire complaint petition complainant had not made any specific defect in respect of the machine in question excepting some non specific allegation like discomfort and not functioning satisfactorily like that. So, he argued that if the allegation is non specific in nature which tantamounts to no allegation. Besides, ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1 stated that there is no expert opinion in respect of non functioning of the machine in question and without the opinion of expert it is not prudent to declare that the machine is not functioning properly and expert opinion is essential to determine the specific defect of the machine. Ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1 also stated that complainant in the prayer (a) of the complaint petition there is no specific demand excepting refund of money with interest of 20% p.a. till the date of final payment. Besides, he has prayed for compensation and some amount for unfair trade practice and some amount for litigation cost. But without any basic deficiency or basic claim such other claims as stated above cannot stand. O.p. further stated that if there is no main claim, so compensation and other cost as has been prayed for by complainant are unjustified and bad in law. In view of above, the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of both the contesting parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we find that it is true that complainant never alleged any specific complaint in respect of the machine during the warranty period. Complainant made some non specific complaint as has been stated by ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1. Besides, it is true that in the prayer portion of the complaint petition there is specifically prayer (a) where no amount has been prayed by complainant, but he prayed for interest, so if there is no basic prayer, so question of interest does not arise. Besides, if there is no basic prayer so the question of compensation, litigation cost, cost for unfair trade practice does not hold good. Upon such observations this Forum hold that complainant has not substantiated his case as there is no deficiency of service on the part of o.ps. and complainant is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest against o.p. no.1 and ex parte against o.p. no.2 without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
