IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                     CASE No.  CC/62/2019

    Date of Filing:                                    Date of Admission:                          Date of Disposal:

        13.05.2019                                               12.06.2019                                      16.08.2023     

Complainant:   Biswanath Chatterjee,

                                R/at-  Vill- Pakurtala,

                                P.O.-Raghunathganj,

                                P.S.- Raghunathganj,

                                Dist-Murshidabad.

                                PIN-742225

                                                                -Vs-

Opposite Party:  Proprietor,

                            Sunny Vision,

                            Sadarghat,

                            P.O.- Raghunathganj

                            P.S.- Raghunathganj

                            Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742225

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        :           Subhanjan Sengupta

Agent/Advocate for the O.P.                                     :            Parijat Ray

           Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.     

                             Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

  Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

   SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY,  member.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Biswanath Chatterjee (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Proprietor, Sunny Vision (here in after referred to as the O.P.) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainant purchased a 2 ton air conditioner machine of LG make from the O.P. on 31.03.2018 and from the very first day of the purchase the air condition machine was not working properly. The Complainant contacted with the O.P. for several times but every time they erected all sorts false and fabricated stories stating that pressure of the machine was very low or the gas of machine was leaking out but did not address the problem properly. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Commission for appropriate relief i.e., for replacement of the air condition machine.  

Defence Case

After due service of the notice the O.P. appeared by filing W/V contending inter alia that as a retailer the O.P. is not authorized to decide on the matter of replacement of the machine. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1, 2 & 3

 All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

Undoubtedly, the Complainant purchased a 2 ton air conditioner machine of LG make from the O.P. on 31.03.2018 and as per petition of the complaint from the very first day of the purchase the air condition machine was not working properly.

The O.P. in the W/V stated that since installation the Complainant made complaint regarding function of the Air Condition Machine and all the time the O.P. visited the house of the Complainant and made necessary inspection. The Complainant is in the habit of making complaint regarding the function of this Air Condition Machine. The O.P. at the time of purchasing the machine informed the Complainant that the service and maintenance of the product is solely on the company and it is the manufacturer company who has only authority to decide whether any such machine will be replaced or not and the retailer is not at all competent and authorized to decide the matter. In spite of that the O.P. informed the matter to the company and the technician of the company also inspected the machine and no inherent defect has been detected by them.  

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any iota of evidence regarding the defect of the air conditioner machine even no service report has been produced regarding the defects of the air condition machine. The Complainant is unable to prove his case. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 13.05.2019 and admitted on 12.06.2019. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.     

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is                                                            

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/62/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

            Member

               Member                                                       Member                                             President.