JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that he purchased one fully automatic washing machine of Videocon vide Model No.( Sl. No. 0765 Model DIGI DOLPHIN DLX ) on full payment of Rs.16,500/- vide Cash Memo No. KG/CM/10608/11-12 from op no.3 Great Eastern Appliances Private Limited and same was delivered to the complainant on 02.02.2012 and formally installed by the technician of M/s Videocon Industries on 07.02.2012 and demonstration was also given on selfsame date.

          Subsequently on 04.04.2012 first complaint was lodged with the customer care of M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. vide docket No. KOL 0404 120069 and Mr. R. Ghosh attended the complaint by paying visit to the complainant’s house.  Thereafter second complaint was lodged on 25.07.2012 on the basis of docket No. KOL 2507140037 and one Niranjan Das, technician visited but failed to resolve the problem and then he advised for sending the machine of the complainant for a total and thorough check up to the service center of the company.  Thereafter on 27.07.2012 the machine was taken by the staff of Paul & Company, the authorized service franchise of Videocon Industries and a road challan cum work order bearing No. 3588 dated 27.07.2012 was issued but after a passage of sometime there was no response from the service center though complainant made so many telephone calls.  But subsequently he came to learn that the machine was till being checked.  But for want of said machine for domestic help was required to be arranged by a monthly remuneration of Rs.1,200/- per month for washing. 

          Complainant wrote to the General Manager of Videocon about his grievance but there was no response.  Subsequently on 05.10.2012 one Mr. Banerjee telephoned and talked with her that the said machine is almost ready to be operational and it would be delivered to the complainant on 09.10.2012 or 10.10.2012.  But ultimately complainant did not receive back it free from all defects.  Rather complainant was informed by the op no.2 that one spare part is not available for outer ring of the spinning drum that was required to be replaced and after receipt of the same the matter shall be repaired and would be returned to the complainant.  But after that complainant sent letter to op but that was returned with remark LEFT.  Then complainant after searching out his new address of the Service Manager, a formal complaint was registered with the Directorate of CA & FBP, Kolkata North RO on 21.11.2012.  But ultimately complainant was compelled to file this complaint for redressal and for return of the said money and also compensation for harassment caused by the op.

          On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that op always attended the complainant on call and satisfied the complainant in running the said washing machine.  But op on 5^th time visited the complainant’s house on the basis of the complaint of the complainant and same problem was detected for which it was taken in the workshop for repairing.  But due to non-availability of relevant parts of the specific purpose, it was delayed and after receipt of the parts it was repaired and that was informed to the complainant that washing machine is completed and husband of the complainant asked to deliver the machine but they disagreed to inspect it.  So, the entire complaint is false and fabricated and fact remains complainant only for the purpose of taking money by them this complaint was filed and prayed for relief for which the complaint should be dismissed. 

But anyhow the other ops did not appear and contest the case for which the case is heard finally for disposal of this case.

                                            Decision with reasons

On proper consideration of the entire materials and record including the complaint and written version and also the document, it is clear that complainant purchased the same on payment of Rs. 16,500/- on 29.01.2012 and it was installed on 02.20.2012 and demonstration was given on 07.02.2012 and thereafter on 04.04.2012 complication was arisen to run the same.  Subsequently on 25.07.2012 further complication was detected and that was also solved at this stage.  Subsequently on 27.07.2012 the staff of Paul & Company, the authorized service franchisee of Videocon Industries took away the said machine but till date it has not been returned.

Truth is that complainant again and again communicated at the service center or the company but they did not respond and also did not return the same after repairing for which complainant was completely disturbed and was compelled to appoint a monthly hire basis machine for cleaning the clothes.

No doubt at this stage op no.1 has tried to convince that is M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. that the said machine had already been repaired and it was reported to the husband of the complainant who refused to accept it.  But no such document is produced by the op that any information was given to the complainant for taking back the said machine on proper receipt.  But it is found that after receipt of the notice by the ops only op no.1 appeared and as per that machine has already been repaired and it is free from any defect.  But question is why one purchaser after purchasing the same on payment of good money of Rs.16,500/- shall have to suffer for washing since 27.07.2012 till today?

Another factor is that it was purchased on 29.01.2012 and delivery was made on 02.02.2012 and it was installed on 07.02.2012.  But thereafter within two months problem was created one after another and ultimately it was removed by the op service center on 27.06.2012 and since then it has not been returned to the complainant.  Then it is clear that there was negligence and deficiency on the part of the op for which complainant even after purchasing a new washing machine has failed to use it for last two years.  For last two years op did not pay any heed and did not return it after proper repairing and after making it free from all troubles.  Then invariably such a customer must not have any faith upon such product and such a customer have been facing much inconvenience for non-function of the same within two years after repairing and such an act on the part of the op is no doubt unfair trade practice and at the same time negligence and deficient manner of service on the part of the op is well proved and we find that for right cause this complaint was filed before this Forum and against op there is/was sufficient ground to file this complaint.

Most interesting factor is that complainant before filing this complaint before this Forum on 28.01.2014 filed an application before the CA & FBP, Kolkata RO where the op did not turn up and for which complaint was filed by this complainant that means op had no social and moral responsibility to show proper relief to the customer and there is no customer care management of the ops’.  Ops are here and there for selling defect articles to the customer and to relalise money, but they are not for customer care and they are not for repairing the purchased articles in time.  They are not giving proper service to the consumer and in this case it is proved that all the ops are worthless and they practically tried to convince that they have completed the same after collecting one part but it is clear that the complainant shall have to suffer much even if it is replaced by such non-sense ops who have their no social and moral responsibility to discharge their duties in favour of the customer(consumer) and in the present case complainant has been harassed and for which complainant is entitled to get back the entire amount of Rs.16,500/- from the op nos. 1 & 3 respectively because complainant purchased it from op no.3 and op no.3 is the dealer of op no.1.  So, op nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally to refund that amount and also for their negligence and deficient manner of service they shall have to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and also litigation cost as would be awarded.

Accordingly the complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is

                                                     ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op no.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/- and same is allowed exparte against op nos. 2 & 3 but same is without any cost.

Op nos. 1 & 3 jointly and severally are hereby directed to refund Rs. 16,500/- to the complainant as price of the said washing machine which was received by the op no.3 and further for harassing the complainant for last two years and for not getting service from the op nos. 1 & 3, op nos. 1 & 3 jointly and severally shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for harassing and for not rendering any good service even after payment of full amount of the said washing machine.

Accordingly op nos. 1 & 3 jointly and severally shall have to pay Rs.26,500/- in total i.e. Rs.16,500/- price of the washing machine + Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation cost which shall be paid within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance and disobeyance of the Forum’s order by the op nos. 1 & 3, they shall have to pay jointly and severally punitive damages and interest @ Rs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and even if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum’s account and op nos. 1 & 3 jointly and severally must comply the order very strictly failing which penal action shall be started for which further penalty and fine may be imposed against op no.1 within stipulated period along with other decretal amount.