The present case being no.412/2007 has been filed u./s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by Sri Bhudev Chandra Nandi, 28A, Col. Biswas Road, Kol-19 against the o.ps. viz (1) M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co,. Ltd., Block-GN, Sector, Salt lake, Kolkata-91 and (2) M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., 2, Gariahat Road (S), Dakshinapan Shopping Complex, Kolkata-68 before the forum praying for various relief as specified at page 5 of the complaint.
The facts are in brief as follows :
That the complainant booked for a storwel M-3 a steel almirah with lockers and hangers and one mirror to be filled to it with the o.p. no.2 on 4.10.06. That the said article was delivered to Mr. Manaranjan Saha, 175, South End Garden (1st Floor), Kolkata-87 as per the instruction of the petitioner. It was delivered on 14.11.06 prior to the delivery date fixed on 19.11.06. The mirror was delivered on 23.11.06. The article was a marriage gift. Storewel was defective and mirror was not fitted. The matter was intimated to the o.ps. but no action was taken to set the article in proper shape. Two advocate’s letters dt.21.12.06 and 18.1.07 were sent to the o.ps. for step. A mechanic was sent by the o.ps. who in spite of his best effort could not set the article in useable condition. Mirror remained unfitted condition. It was a loss of prestige of the complainant and humiliation as the article was a gift one and it could not be put in use. It was within the guarantee period. The o.ps. are of repute company. Non action on the part of the o.ps. made the complainant to move the case before the forum for adjudication. The petitioner relied upon the annex marked ABCD.
The o.ps. have been contesting he case all along by way of filing the w/v denying therein very emphatically the material allegation as alleged by the complainant.
The o.ps. contented in their w/v that the date of delivery as mentioned in the petition of complaint does not totally with the date of receipt. This is not the matter of dispute. The petitioner did not get service in spite of complaint lodged by them with the o.ps. the article as it appears from the record was not in a useable condition while it was delivered to the petitioner’s man. Petitioner wanted to have he article in a good condition from a renowned company but to his utter dismay he found that he neith4er received any service nor article in a workable condition. This upsets him.
The o.ps. have no solid ground or evidence to controvert the complaint lodged by the petitioner.
The o.ps. could have rendered service to the satisfaction of the o.ps. and put the article in a workable condition. The o.ps. as it appears did nothing in this regard. As the article was for a gift purpose the petitioner lost prestige and faced humiliation. Till date the mirror was not fitted to the almirah and the locker was not put in order. The petitioner could not use this article. This is a clear case of deficiency on the part of he o.ps.
Having considered all such aspect as discussed the forum is of he opinion that the o.ps. have not rendered service to the satisfaction of the petitioner and the petitioner has been able to prove his case to the hilt so as to get the benefit within the ambit of the C.P. Act, 1986. The case succeeds on contest.
Hence,
Ordered,
The o.ps. are directed to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs.13,340/- (Rupees thirteen thousand three hundred forty) only the cost of the article (storwel M-3) and the o.ps. are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) respectively only as compensation and litigation cost for causing needless mental agony, harassment to the petitioner through its negligence, inaction and deficiency. The payment should be made within 45 days from this date of the order failing which it will carry interest @ 8% p.a. from this date of this order till realization. The petitioner after receiving the refund As ordered would return the article in question to the o.ps.
Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
