DATE OF FILING : 14-12-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 16-01-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 18-09-2012.
Samar Nayak,
son of late Mohendra Nath Nayak,
resident of holding no. 9+10/1/1/1, Tarapada Chatterjee Lane,
P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah.-------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. M/S. Godrej & Boyee Manufacturing Company Ltd.,
having its registered office at Pirajshanagar, Vikhroli,
Mumbai – 400 079.
2. Service Manager,
Godraj & Boyee Manufacturing Company Limited,
Appliances Division, Block – GN 30, Salt Lake City,
Sec. V, Kolkata – 700 091.
3. Salesman being code no. 3341
of Godrej and Boyee Manufacturing Company Limited,
Appliances Division, Block – G N, 30, Salt Lake City,
Sec. V. Kolkata – 700 091.
4. M/S. K.P. Cool Point,
having its office situated at 27, Uttam Ghosh Lane,
Howrah – 711 106. ----------------------------------------------- Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
The complainant, Shri Samar Nayak by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p.no. 2 to replace the refrigerator in question with a new one and to pay litigation cost along with other relief.
Brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased one refrigerator of Godrej & Boyee make by making a payment of Rs. 10,793/- in cash on 30-12-2010 vide memo. No. 1, 2, Q 3 which was delivered on the same date. But immediately after installation of the said fridge, it started giving trouble. And complainant lodged complaints with o.p. no. 2 for three times being complaint nos. 191267, 1189349 & 107243. And o.p. no. 4 sent its staff to complainant’s residence and attended the said machine and changed the thermostat control switch for thrice. But still not the fridge did not work normally. Finally on 22-07-2011 complainant sent a letter to o.p. no. 2 asking for the replacement of the said fridge. But o.p. no. 2 did not reply to that letter and kept quiet without giving any further service. And finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition before this Forum praying for the replacement of the said machine. Notice was served upon o.ps. O.p. nos. 1,2 & 3 appeared and filed written version but o.p. no. 4 never appeared and no written version was filed by them. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte against o.p. no. 4.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
By paying the purchase price for the fridge in question, complainant becomes a consumer of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. No payment was made to o.p. nos. 3 & 4. Hence, the complainant is not at all a consumer of o.p. nos. 3 & 4.
It is complainant’s own admission that o.p. nos. 1 & 2 sent some person to attend his machine and the thermostat was changed for three times. O.p.nos. 1 & 2 in their written version vide para no. 6 have contended that complainant’s fridge is a direct cool machine and complainant was required to defrost it manually for preventing excess ice formation, which complainant did not follow and as a result his machine gave trouble. And on demand of the complainant, thermostat of the said machine was changed for three times. And only due to mishandling and ignorance of the complainant, machine was giving trouble. Complainant in his reply to question no. 9, as asked by o.p. no. 2, gave an answer that goes like “I did not know that it is obligatory to defrost manually in a direct cool machine at a regular interval.” And from this statement, it is crystal clear that complainant did not take any step to defrost his direct cool machine regularly that led to formation of excess ice. We have also carefully noted the replies given by complainant to the question nos. 10,11, 12, 13. And as against question no. 14 of o.p. no. 2, complainant answered like ‘Not a fact that as per my demand the thermostat has been replaced by o.p”. But complainant in his petition vide para no. 4 stated that the staff of o.p. no. 4 changed the thermostat control switch three. Complainant should have kept in mind that whatever reply he is giving, that he is giving on oath. As a result, we cannot hold o.p. as deficient in giving post sales service which forms an integral part of Sale’s policy of o.p. But at the same time, it is also to be kept in mind that after paying such an amount of Rs. 10,793/- for the said refrigerator, the thermostat of the said machine was required to be changed thrice which is nothing but an inherent defect which o.p . nos. 1 & 2 should have taken seriously and redressed the grievances of complainant. Moreover, it was o.ps.’ duty to explain to the complainant about what are the required measures to be followed by the complainant for proper handling of the said machine. And it is not at all a luxury on the part of the complainant that without any valid reason he is inviting all these problems like filing a case before this Forum and attending the same everyday leaving aside his other work. Moreover, o.p. has not annexed any document, whatsoever, to prove that due to the ignorance and mishandling , the fridge was giving trouble. So, keeping an eye to the spirit of the C.P. Act, 1986, we allow the petition of complaint as against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in terms of Section 14(1)(a) of the C.P. Act, 1986 without awarding any compensation to be paid by o.ps. but with cost. And the case is dismissed against o.p. nos. 3 & 4.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 115 of 2011 ( HDF 115 of 2011 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2.
That the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the fridge in question with a new one of same model, capacity and features within one month and to pay a litigation costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d. Rs. 50/- shall be charged against them till the full compliance of this order.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
