DATE OF FILING : 12-06-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 15-07-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 23-12-2014.
Mr. Shyamal Lodh,
presently residing at 1/28/6, Mirpara Road, P.S. Liluah,
District Howrah
PIN 711 203. ……………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
1. Reliance Digital
Reliance Retail Limited
incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and
carrying on business at Avani Riverside
32, Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Salkia,
District Howrah,
PIN 711 102.
2. Bajaj Finserv
Office 1201, 12th floor,
Infinity Benchmark, Plot G 1, EP & GP, Section 5,
Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 091,
West Bengal. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, Mr. Shyamal Lodh, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund Rs. 23,737/- being the cost of the window air condition machine and one coffee maker machine , to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant bought two household gadgets from the o.p. no. 1 on 06-02-2014 at a total payment of Rs. 23,737/- i.e., one window A.C. Machine for Rs. 21,041/- and one coffee maker for Rs. 2,296/- and the charges for the installation of A.C. Machine was Rs. 400/- vide Annexures B & B1 collectively. Complainant also availed himself of a loan of Rs. 17,192/- duly accorded by o.p. no. 2 and complainant paid the total E.M.I. amount of Rs. 18,920/- vide Annexure ‘A’ collectively. O.p. no. 1 also provided warranty card, being Annexure ‘B’ for the said two items for one year. But it is alleged by the complainant just after two months, coffee machine started giving problem which was informed to o.p. no. 1 and one mechanic was sent by o.p. no. 1 and the machine was taken away on 02-04-2014 but it was not returned to the complainant till the filing of this case. Same thing occurred in case of the window A.C. Machine. And complainant lodged several complaints over telephone on 16-05-2014, 17-05-2014, 19-05-2014, 20-05-2014 & 21-05-2014 on toll free number of the o.p. no. 1 and he was given one complaint no. being 8003350038. Mechanic came but could not repair the defect and told the complainant that the defect is a manufacturing one and could not be fully repaired. So, according to the complaint, in such circumstances, o.p. no. 1 is bound to take back the machines and refund the purchase price. But o.p. no. 1 refused to do that. Hence, the case.
- Notices were served upon o.ps. O.p. no. 1 appeared and filed written version. But o.p. no. 2 neither appeared nor filed any written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte against o.p. no. 2.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. O.P. no. 1 in their written version vide para 11 has denied and disputed all material allegations leveled against them by the complainant. Further they have taken a specific plea that the goods were unpacked in front of the complainant and after being fully satisfied with the functioning of two, complainant purchased the goods. So, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable. Here we take a pause. We need to understand the necessity of giving warranty against the sold items by the seller. If no post sale service is provided by the seller, the entire spirit of warranty is frustrated. O.p. no. 1 has totally forgotten that the ultimate prosperity of their business depends upon the customer’s satisfaction. Warranty constitutes an integral part of sale. And if the seller, being o.p. no. 1, has no regard or respect towards that, definitely o.p. no. 1 is deficient in providing service. Complainant has no claim against o.p. no. 2. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 336 of 2014 ( HDF 336 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 1 and dismissed ex parte against o.p. no. 2 without costs.
That the O.P. no. 1 be directed to refund Rs. 23,737/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the amount shall carry 10 per cent per annum interest till realization.
That the o.p. no. 1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs.
That the o.p. no. 1 is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 26,737/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
