Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.04.2016
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to replace the defective goods at the earliest with the same model one.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has bought an Innova GO Electric Kitchen Chimney from opposite party shop vide annexure – 1 on 18.07.2013 after paying Rs. 16,100/-. The aforesaid Chimney was installed. After purchasing the same the chimney developed some defect which has resulted in great inconvenience. Thereafter he lodged several complaints with opposite party on phone but his grievance was not redressed. Thereafter the complainant registered a fresh complaint with opposite party being complaint no. 3006 dated 05.05.2014 but again the opposite party did not entertained his grievance. The complainant also put a formal complaint bearing no. 3006 dated 05.05.2014 to the opposite party.
Opposite party had already provided warranty for 5 years vide annexure – 2 and all the aforesaid defects has occurred during the warranty period.
On behalf of opposite party a written statement has been filed stating therein that from perusal of annexure – 2 it is crystal clear that consumer can register his complaint before dealer or service centre.
It has been further asserted by the opposite party that the complainant has purchased the chimney on 18.07.2013 and the complaint was lodged on 05.05.2014 hence it is crystal clear that the chimney did not developed any defect for about 10 months.
After receiving the complaint on 05.05.2014 the opposite party has advised him to contact service centre and the opposite party had also enabled the complainant to talk to service centre hence it is wrong to say that the opposite party has not taken any action in regard of the complaint of the complainant.
In Para – 5 of written statement it has been stated by the opposite party that consumer has got his defect removed from the service centre prior to filing of this case but he has filed this case only to harass this complaint.
On behalf of opposite party one Sanjay Kumar Proprietor Savera Enterprises had sworn an affidavit which is in the record.
In Para – 4 of aforesaid affidavit it has been stated that after lodging the complaint dated 05.05.2014 the complainant has got his defect removed after attending the service centre.
In Par a- 6 of affidavit it has been stated that defect of the chimney has been removed by service centre and on 19.05.2014 kit and capacitor has been given to him by service centre and hence the case has been filed by the complainant after removing of his defect.
The complainant has not filed any rejoinder to the aforesaid facts asserted by opposite party in his written statement and affidavit and hence we have no option but to accept the assertion of opposite party.
From the affidavit as well as chart attached by the opposite party with written statement it is crystal clear that the defect of chimney was removed on 19.05.2014 while the case has been filed on 27.05.2014. Hence we have no option but to accept the statement of the opposite party and as such this case stands disposed off in terms of aforesaid facts stated in written statement.
Member President
