West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/10/102

Kanak Kumar Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Renguin Refrigeration Service - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jun 2012

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Unit-I, Kolkata
http://confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/102
 
1. Kanak Kumar Ghosh
107H, Block-F, New Alipore, Kolkata-53
Kolkata
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Renguin Refrigeration Service
P30, A & B, New CIT Road, Kolkata-700014.
Kolkata
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das PRESIDENT
  Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri MEMBER
  Smt. Sharmi Basu MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

 

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.  102 / 2010.

 

1)                   Kanak Kumar Ghosh,

            107H, Block-F, New Alipore, Kolkata-700053.                                         ---------- Complainant

 

---Versus---

 

1)                   Penguin Refrigeration Service,

P-30, A & B, New CIT Road, Nihir Bhawan, Kolkata-700014.

and 1, Satya Doctor Road, Babu Bazar, Khidderpore, Martin Burn Complex, Kol-23.

 

2)                   Whirlpool of India Ltd.,

            Shantiniketan Building, 8, Camac Street, Kol-17.

            And Head office at Whirlpool House, P No 40, Sector 44,            Gurgaon-122001.---------- Opposite Party

 

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

                                        

Order No.   26    Dated 08/06/2012.

 

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Kanak Kumar Ghosh against the o.ps. Penguin Refrigeration Service and another. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Whirlpool double door refrigerator (model no. WRN 32R).

            The specific case of the complainant is that on 18.9.09 one Anirban Dutta visited the house of complainant in  response to his wife’s complaint in the matter of non-functioning of the aforesaid refrigerator and the said Mr. Dutta introduced himself as a representative of Whirlpool India Ltd. and/or M/s. Penguin Refrigeration Service and the said Mr. Dutta took Rs.280/- as service charge and gave a receipt vi.de annex-1 and Mr. Dutta detected breakdown of the compressor from advised its replacement with a new one at a cost of Rs.8000/- and Mr. Dutta was asked to furnish an estimate and accordingly the said refrigerator was shifted for replacement of the compressor of their service centre viz. M/s Penguin Refrigeration Service on 19.9.09 and the said refrigerator was returned to complainant on 24.9.09 replacing a new compressor. Further case of the complainant is that even after replacement of new compressor the same proved to be the annoyingly noisy and straining while operating. Thereafter the complainant contacted Mr. Anirban Dutta several times for removal of defects as stated above and Mr. Dutta came down to the residence of complainant and found defect in compressor and the refrigerator was taken away by Penguin Refrigeration Service on 31.10.09 as per opinion of Mr. Dutta and the refrigerator was last delivered on 10.11.09 and thereafter, too within one week or so after delivery of the refrigerator the new compressor staled and the interior of the refrigerator was flooded with discharged water and then again complainant over phone informed Mr. Dutta of the development and complainant lodged complaint with the Whirlpool of India Ltd. on 18.11.09 before the visit of Mr. Dutta the compressor started working on its own after 2-3 days of the incident. Complainant and his wife showed Mr. Dutta the accumulated water at the bottom of the refrigerator both inside and outside.  Complainant lodged complaint with M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. on 7.12.09 and thereafter again on 10.1.10 wrote  a letter by regd. post complaining noise and non issuance of guaranty of the replaced compressor, but no response was there from their end and all these incidents have resulted in much strains, stress and mental agony of complainant. Hence the case has been filed by complainant in view of the facts and circumstances disclosed above.

            O.p. no.2 had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against it and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. no.1 did not contest the case by filing w/v and accordingly the matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.1. Ld. lawyer of o.p. no.2 in the course of argument submitted that the instant case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and no consideration was paid by complainant directly to o.p. no.2 and no service was provided by o.p. no.2 to complainant.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is an admitted position that a new compressor was replaced in the refrigerator of complainant by o.p. no.1 vide annex-5 and 6 attached with the petition of complaint. from annex-6 attached with the petition of complaint it reveals that warranty period of six months was endorsed on return of defective compressor putting thereon dt.10.11.09. But surprisingly, enough that new replaced compressor so fitted in the refrigerator of complainant started posing problem within six months and the defect could not be finally removed by men of o.p. no.1 and this has caused much stress, strain and mental agony to complainant. Such act on the part of o.p. no.1 amounts to profuse deficiency being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and this should not be allowed to be continued. From the record we find that o.p. no.1 is the authorized service partner of o.p. no.2 and we find lapse and deficiency on the part of both the o.ps. and o.p. no.2 cannot shirk off its responsibility in discharging service being a service provider to its consumer / complainant. Accordingly we hold that the complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.2 and ex parte with cost against o.p. no.1. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to return a sum of Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand) only together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit of the said sum till the date of realization and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Complainant is directed to return the compressor in question to o.p. after compliance with the aforesaid order within 30 days.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

 

 

 

 

        _____Sd-_____               ______Sd-______               ______Sd-______

          MEMBER                         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri]
MEMBER
 
[ Smt. Sharmi Basu]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.