West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/80/2015

Paritosh Hazra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Neyaz Ahmed, Prop. of N.S. Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Self

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT - II.
8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700087.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/80/2015
 
1. Paritosh Hazra
B-3/23/1B, Alampur Ramdashati Road, P.S. Rabindra Nagar, Kolkata-700066.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Neyaz Ahmed, Prop. of N.S. Electronics
1, Dharmatala Street, P.S. New Market, Kolkata-700013.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Bipin Mukhopadhyay PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sangita Paul MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Subrata Sarkar MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Self, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
OP is present.
 
ORDER

Order-10.

Date-22/06/2015.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is a social worker working for the society and also a practicing Advocate  and on 07-08-2014 complainant appeared at the shop of the OP i.e. in the N.S. Electronics at New Market and expressed his requirement as his personal use i.e. to record automatically with clear photos for a reasonable time i.e. about an hour etc. and for that purpose the OP suggested to purchase the pen-camera with chip for recording in question the consumer asked that he has no experience to use the instruments in question against the property sealed and signed bills for those with six months warranty along with verbal promise to provide the after sale services properly and perfectly.

          Before purchasing the pen-camera with chip for recording in question the consumer asked that he has no experience to use the instruments in question, so he has to purchase those instruments on good faith and if it is seen that after purchasing if the purposes of the consumer is not fulfilled then OP shall be bound to return it to the complainant the purchase as after getting back the said pen-camera.

          After purchasing complainant tried to use it but failed to use when complainant went to OP’s shop to disclose the matter but OP did not cooperate and practically the said pen-camera did not serve the purpose of the complainant and OP did not render any service in respect of that and due to negligent and deficient manner of service and selling of such defective article to the complainant, complainant filed this complaint praying for direction upon the OP to return the entire value of the same and for compensation.

          On the other hand, OP appeared and submitted that the entire allegation is false and fabricated, complainant at his own wish purchased the same and OP accepted the goods for service towards repair, replacement etc. without any protest and gave him all services but he failed to use it and ultimately it was damaged and that was repaired and returned to the complainant and as already 6 months have expired, present complaint is not maintainable.

Decision with Reasons

On proper consideration of the complaint and the written version and also hearing of both the parties in open court OP admitted that they shall have to receive back the pen-camera etc. M. Card accordingly on 18-06-2015  OP received back the disputed pen-camera along with M.Card etc. from the complainant in Open Forum and submitted their willingness to refund the entire amount.  But it was admitted by the OP that value of the said pen-camera was Rs.2,750/- and in fact, complainant misused it and make it defective and that was repaired and returned to the complainant but even then complainant failed to use it but it is the fault of the complainant.  OP never allured the complainant to purchase it.

          Considering the conduct of the OP and their expression and the act of receipt back the same from the complainant forthwith before this Forum we are convinced to hold that OP never deceived the complainant but fact remains the complainant had his desire to wel-accustom with the present development system of pen-camera, purchased it but ultimately failed to use it for lack of technical knowledge.  No doubt OP complied and helped him but he failed to implement it properly and it is found that partly the pen was broken that means it was somehow fell by the complainant’s hand for which it was broken but it was suppressed by the complainant and complainant has failed to produce that the pen camera is in intact condition with him.  Whatever it may be the admission of the OP we are allowing the complaint without any cost when OP is willing to refund the said amount.

In the result, the case succeeds partly.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest but without any cost against the OP.

          Considering the entire fact OP is directed to pay the sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within one month in cash on proper receipt failing which penal interest @Rs.100/- shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree. 

          OP is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of this order failing for non-compliance of the Forum’s order OP shall be prosecuted u/s.27 of the C.P. Act.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Bipin Mukhopadhyay]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sangita Paul]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Subrata Sarkar]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.