West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/3/2015

Swapan Kr. Adhikari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. of Girnar Godrej Interio. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint case No.03/2015                                                         Date of disposal: 21/04/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. T. Adhya, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. B.K. Patihar, Advocate.                                  

          

 Swapan Kr. Adhikari, S/o Santosh Kumar Adhikari, vill. Seema Appart, Flat No.F/1/1, Rajabazar,

 P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Paschim Medinipur………..Complainant.

                                                           Vs.

1)Prop: of Girnar Godrej Interio, E-9, Arubinda Nagar, Judge’s Court Road, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur,

2)Godrej Boyee Mfg. Co. Ltd., Applience Division, Plant-II, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400079,

3)Swarup Bhattacharjee, Block GN-Sec-V, Salt lake City, Near Sastha Bhaban, Godrej Bhaban, Kolkata-19,

4)M/S Gold Star, Authorised Service Centre of Godrej Co., Ram Krishna Misson Road, Sujaganj, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur..……………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Sri Swapan Kr. Adhikari,  in short, is that a Washing Machine was purchased by the complainant at the cost of Rs.28,9,99/- against payment receipt dated 08/03/2013.  But within one year the machine was out of service within warranty period.  At the time was purchased in the same, it was assured that within 48 hours service will be given in the matter of it’s any problem.  It is alleged, by the complainant that despite online complaint, no service has been rendered even after 10 days.  Again on 03/07/2014 online complaint was lodged, a technician visited to the complainant and demanded Rs.550/-.  Further complaint was lodged for solution of the problem.  Some repairing work was installed but even thereafter the machine was not in proper functioning and therefor replacement of the machine or refund of money with interest was claimed by the complainant.  In this connection, on 28/11/2014, inspection was again made by the OP and decided that the machine is O.K.  It is alleged by the complainant that he has been harassed

Contd………….P/2

 

                                                         - ( 2 ) -

 

 by the OP by means of their wrongful act as stated.  Stating the allegation, the complainant prays for replacement of the Washing Machine and compensation of Rs.20,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Certain documentary evidence namely Copies of Payment Receipt, Warranty Card & Online Complaints.      

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  The OP proposed for replacement with higher model of Washing Machine and as such there is no question of deficiency of service. Hence the case should be dismissed.       

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute. 

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that it is the fact that the washing Machine shows problem and the same was, on several occasions, attended by efficient technicians of the OP.  But even then Machine has not come into correctly functioning to the satisfaction of the complainant and ultimately the same was proposed for subjected to be replaced with higher model.  Thus, the complainant has suffered from deficiency of service by having received no proper service in order to remove the inherent defect accrued in the machine within warranty period.  So, prayer for compensation with change of Washing Machine with same model may be allowed.

              Objection raised by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP claiming that the alleged defective machine will be changed by supplying higher model even upon rendering due service to the complainant as and when complaint received by the OP.  So, there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the OP Company.

              We have carefully considered the case and it appears that the online complaints were attended which resulted no satisfactory service to the complainant from the end of the OP and thereby proposal for alteration of the Washing Machine was made to the complainant.  In view of

Contd………….P/3

 

                                                         - ( 3 ) –

 

the fact, we do not find any strong ground to hold deficiency of service against the OP since they opted for replacement of the Washing Machine.

            Under the facts and circumstances, we are to accept the proposal for replacement of the alleged defective machine, if not possible, for any reason, refund of the price of the said Washing Machine in favour of the complainant.

           In the context of the above, the issues are disposed of and the complaint should be allowed.     

               Hence,

                            It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

            The complainant is entitled to get replacement of his Washing Machine model No.GWI 5511 (REOS) with another functioning machine or refund of purchase money within 30 days payable by the OP in favour of the complainant.

            The complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Five hundred) only.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                                   Member                             President

                                                                                                                                        District Forum

                                                                                                                                    Paschim Medinipur.