C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/104
COMPLAINANT : Pankaj Kumar Biswas
S/o Late Rabindranath Biswas
Vill. Mojaffar Nagar Colony,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Prop. Siddheswari Bastralaya,
Vill. Patulighat Road, Phooltala,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 28th January, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 05.06.10 he purchased one umbrella manufactured by K.C. Paul and Sons from the OP’s shop at a price of Rs. 222/- and against this purchase OP delivered one receipt also without mentioning the name of the complainant and the brand of the umbrella also. After returning home at the time of using the umbrella it was detected by him that the clip of the umbrella was defective, as a result of which he could not use the umbrella. So on 07.06.10 he went to the shop room of the OP along with the receipt with a request to change it at which the OP declined. Thereafter on 08.06.10 he sent a letter to the OP with a request to change the umbrella, but to no effect. So it is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the complainant purchased one umbrella from his shop room and he accordingly issued a receipt also, but in the cash memo the brand name was not written as there is no warranty period of that article sold by him. He has denied the allegation of the complainant not to change the alleged defective umbrella. Rather he submits that he sent a letter to the complainant with a request to meet him at his shop room along with the umbrella to exchange it with a new one, but the complainant did not contact with him. Rather he filed this case in order to harass this OP. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with annexed documents and the written version filed by the OP it is available on record that it is admitted case of the parties that this complainant purchased one umbrella from the shop room of the OP on 05.06.10 at a price of Rs. 222/-. Complainant’s case is that from the very beginning, the clip of the umbrella was defective, as a result of which he failed to use it and subsequently he requested the OP to exchange it with a new one at which the OP declined. He then sent a letter also to the OP requesting to change same article, but to no effect. At the time of argument, ld. lawyer for the OP submits that this OP is ready to exchange the defective umbrella with a fresh one and to that extent, he sent a letter to the complainant also. A copy of the same is filed before the Forum on 20.01.11 which was sent through the Nightingale Courier Service. But in the copy of the letter the column of the consignee’s signature is blank. So we find that it is not proved that the letter was actually received by the complainant.
Therefore, considering the facts of this case and after hearing the arguments laid by the ld. lawyers for both the parties, we find that the umbrella purchased by the complainant from the OP was a defective one since purchase. It is also established that the OP did not exchange the defective umbrella with a new one, though the complainant requested him verbally and in writing. The umbrella is produced by the ld. lawyer for the complainant before us and we find after examining it that the clip of the said umbrella is defective. So we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP in his dealing with the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/104 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 222/- as price of the umbrella along with compensation of Rs. 200/- plus litigation cost of Rs. 100/-. The OP is directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 522/- to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment after taking back the defective umbrella from the complainant, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
