DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. NO- 147/2017
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
21.03.2017 11.04.2017 30.08.2019
Complainant/s: Bharati Dutta,
94/3, East Kodalia, New Barrackpore New Road,
Near Pragati Sangha Club, Kolkata-700131.
=Vs=
O.P/s :- 1. Reliance Retail Limited, formerly Reliance Fresh Ltd,
Diamond City North Mall, Shop No.SF-1, 2,10 and 11,
Second Floor, 68, Jessore Road, Kolkata, W.B.
2. Hitachi India Private Limited,
207, Ascot Centre, Next to Hilton Hotel, Sahar Road
Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099.
P R E S E N T :- Sri Karna Prasad Burman…………………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………………Member.
The facts of the complaint case, in brief, that the complainant purchased an Air conditioner (split) manufactured by the O.P. No.2 being model No. 581107150 Hit Sac 1.5t 5s Zunoh Ace Rau518avd EA, Qty.1, Serial No. RAC518AVD-150B3224, 581107150001, Hit Sac Idu 1.5t 5s Zunoh Acc Ras518avd, EA, Qty.-1, Article Code/EAN Code-581107150002, Hit Sac Odu 1.5t 5s Zunoh Ace Rac 518avd, EA, Qty.-1, Article Code 491182024, Presstch Odu Wall amount 3.5 kg, EA, Qty.-Serial No. 1232969698 from the O.P. No.1, Reliance Retail Ltd having its shop at Diamond City, North Mall, Shop No. SF-1,2,10 and 11, Second Floor, 68, Jessore road, Kolkata on 03.04.2015 at the consideration amount of Rs. 45,782/-. After purchase the said machine it was installed by the O.P side at the place of the complainant on 04.04.2015. Thereafter, the said machine was not functioning properly and as such that matter was reported to the O.P. No.1. But no effect. Thereafter, asked the O.Ps to replace the said machine by a new one or to return the purchase amount through advocate notice. The O.P. No.1 is the retailer of the aforesaid machine and O.P. No.2 is the manufacturer of the said machine. Despite the said report and advocate notice the O.P side did not take any step to repair or rectify the aforesaid defect machine. Non action on part of the O.Ps in respect of repairing or rectifying the aforesaid machine leads to presume that there is deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps and as such having been constrained the complainant filed this case under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 and prayed thereby direction upon the O.Ps for replacement of the aforesaid defective Air conditioning machine by way of installing a new one and further prayed for damages for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost liter-alia.
Summons issued and appearance made by both the O.Ps.
Contd/-2
C.C. NO- 147/2017
:: 2 ::
The O.P. No.2 side failed to proceed with the case itaccordingly and as such the instant case proceeded exparte against it (order No. 06 dated 28.11.2017) and O.P. No.1 contested the case by filing the W.V against the complaint. O.P. No.1 made categorical denials against the complaint and took plea that after installations of the aforesaid machine it was servicing/functioning accordingly upto one year warranty period. When the O.P side demanded charges for rectifying / repairing of the aforesaid machine second time, at that time the complainant has denied to pay it. O.P side also submitted that the instant case is baseless, harassing and vexatious one rather with an ulterior motive for wrongful gain the complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps which is not tenable in the eye of law and as such they prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
Considering the above pleadings as well as nature and character of this case the following points are necessarily come out for consideration to reach the just decision of the case:-
- Is the complainant a consumer under Section 2(1) (d) (i) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- To what other relief/ reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Decision with Reasons
Considering the nature and character of the case all the points are inter-linked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
- The complainant has purchased one Air conditioner machine from the O.P. No.1 at the consideration amount of Rs. 45,782/- and the O.P. No.2 is the manufacturer of the said machine and it is admitted by the O.P side. As such this status of the complainant is consumer as per provision laid down under Section 2(1) (d) (i) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
- On perusal of the materials available on case record it is appeared that the complainant resides in New Barrackpore New Road, near Pragati Sangha Club and O.P. No.1 is situated at Diamond City North Mall, Jessore Road, Kolkata and the claim amount does not exceed the pecuniary limit of this Forum. As such this Forum has both territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
C.C. NO- 147/2017
:: 3 ::
- On perusal of the materials available on the case record as well as on hearing of argument of both sides it is appeared to us that the complainant has failed to substantiate her allegation against the O.Ps in respect of deficiency in service because of the fact the complainant did not prove the manufacturing defect of the AC machine within the warranty period by way of seeking expert opinion. Moreover, she did not prove the reporting facts in respect of non-functioning of the AC machine to the O.P side within warranty period. She did not deny her non-payment of repairing charge as alleged by the O.Ps also. Therefore, we have no alternative but to hold that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service against the O.Ps.
Considering the fate of this point the positive results of point Nos. 1and 2 became useless to establish the case as well as considering the fate of point No.3; discussion of point No.4 became needless.
Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Fees paid are correct.
The instant case has failed to achieve its success on contest.
Hence, for ends of justice, it is
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by
Member President
