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.486/2012.
1) Chira Ranjan Dass,
A/7, Vedpragya Complex,
101/A, Santosh Roy Road,
P.O. Barisha, Kolkata-8 ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) M/s Techno,
7, West Row, Park Circus,
Kolkata-17, P.S. Kareya. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 8 Dated 21-08-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant has a Usha-Brita Digital on line water purifier manufactured by M/s Usha Shriram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. M/s Techno is their Service Franchisee and the said machine is covered under AMC receipt no.2011-12/2002 valid upto 11.8.13.
M/s Techno is habitually negligent and deficient in giving proper service to the complainant:
1. Half-yearly servicing due by 11.2.12 was done on 18.3.12 i.e. after more than a month and that too after several reminders.
2. The m/c was displaying ‘change cartridge’ sign.
2.1 Complaint no.BMA-2 lodged with ‘Techno’ on 2.5.12.
2.2 Reminder on 8.5.12.
2.3 Complaint no.52130 lodged with Principal’s ‘Customer Care’ on 21.5.12 followed by reminder in on 25.5.12.
2.4 Attended on 29.5.12 i.e. after 27 days (cartridge not changed).
3.1 Complaint no.71511 lodged with customer care on 15,7,12 followed by several reminders.
3.2 Attended on 26.7.12 i.e. after 10 days.
4.1 Complaint no.BAG-20 lodged with Techno on 6.8.12 followed by reminder on 16.8.12.
5 Last letters to both M/s Techno and M/s Usha-Shriram Enterprise (P) Ltd. seem to have no effect on them.
Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. did not contest this case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against the o.p.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. has not come forward to rebut the evidence of complainant and as such, the evidence of complainant has remained unchallenged testimony and we find no reason to disbelieve the same and we find o.p. had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five 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. Complainant is directed to return the machine in question to the o.p. within seven days after compliance of the order above by them.
