In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 339/2012.
1) Shri Prasanto Mukherjee,
72/B, Balaram Dey Street, Kolkata-6. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) M/s Panasonic India (P) Ltd.
8, Camac Street, 5th Floor, Kolkata-16,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
2) M/s Great Eastern Appliances (P) Ltd.
20, Old CourtHouse Street, Kolkata-1. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. Dated
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased an Air Conditioner machine from o.p. no.2 on 21.5.12 having model of Panasonic CU-YC 12 NKY-2-1.00 Ton manufactured by o.p. no.1. The cost of the said article was Rs.23,000/- paid to the o.p. no.2 by the complainant. At the time of purchasing on 21.5.12 it was told to the complainant by the o.p. no.2 that the said machine will be sent to the complainant’s residece as soon as possible and after the delivery of the said machine will be installed by o.p. no.1 by taking installation charge in addition to the aforesaid cost of purchase.
On 22.5.12 complainant received a telephone call in his mobile no.9830152028 from 9830856255 and the said caller said his name N. Mallick and identified himself as a service agent of o.p. no.1 and requested the complainant to inform him as soon as the A.C. machine would be delivered by the complainant from o.p. no.2 so that he can send his technicians to install the said machine in the house of the complainant.
The said machine was delivered to the complainant on 23.5.12 and soon after the said delivery the complainant informed the aforesaid N. Mallick with the requested to send the technician to install the machine.
Some time after at about 10 – 10.30 a.m. on 24.5.12 two persons came to the residence of complainant and identified themselves being sent by o.p. no.2 from their service centre to install the said A.C. machine. On the said day (24.5.12) at about 3 p.m. the complainant received a telephone call from aforesaid Sanjay Khettry and it was told by him to the complainant that the aforesaid persons / technicians were demanding much more money (Rs.3300/-) without any proper reasons beyond the verbal agreement (Rs.2000/-), as had with the complainant and the aforesaid caller from the mobile no.9830856255 who was an agent of the company.
On hearing about the said report the complainant then and there contacted with the said agent in his said mobile no.9830856255 and requested him to instruct his men not to demand such exorbitant and undue money, but the said person instead of paying any heed to the complainant threatened the complainant that if he would not pay according to their demand, the installation work would be stopped and left incompleted and under the said forced and compelling circumstances the complainant had to give instruction to aforesaid Sanjay Khattry to pay the said amount of money (Rs.3300/-) according to the demand of the said persons / technicians to avoid the hazard of incompletion of the installation work.
Complainant wrote yet another letter dt.18.6.12 to o.p. no.1 requesting and reminding the said o.p. no.1 to take positive steps to words the said grievances of the complainant but in spite of the said reminder o.p. no.1 did not pay heed to it. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.2 had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. no.2 in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. O.p. no.1 did not contest this case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against the o.p.1.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.p. had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contested withot cost against o.p. no.2 and ex parte with cost against the o.p. no.1. O.p.1. is directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
