Smt. Rupali Ghosh

W/F Sri Souvick Ghosh,

Duilya Water tank, Howrah House no. 335

Howrah 711 302------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Saha Cycle Stores,

N.C. Pal Market, Andul Bus Stand,

Andul Mouri, Howrah – 711 302

Kuntal Saha      

2.      Tube Inuestments of India Ltd.

Andul Bus Stand, Andul Morui,

Howrah – 711 302-------------------------------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

1.                  Complainant Smt. Rupali Ghosh by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P., Saha Cycle Stores, to replace the cycle in question with a new one, to pay an amount of ` 30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and `5,000/- as litigation cost along with other  order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                   Brief fact of the case is the complainant purchased one cycle from the O.P. 1 on 22.02.2013 on payment of `3950/- vide money receipt dt22.02.2013 according to her statement, it was to be used by her to go for tuitions and to sell cosmetics and toiletries from door to door to earn her livelihood. But immediately on the next day of purchase, a leak was found on back tyre of the cycle. When she asked them for repairing the same, at first O.P. 1 refused to do that but after much persuasion, at the time of repairing as it was found that the tude was in a damaged condition, O.P. 1 changed that tube, But after four / five days, multiple problems arose like handle loose, broken parts of the cycle, giving noise at the time of running the cycle, even two spokes of the cycle were open and all these were told on 18.04.2013 to O.P. 1. Even while running, the back side wheel was getting obstructed and not moving properly. Complainant went to the shop of O.P. 1 but they refused to repair it and practically, she could not use the cycle and as a result, she was getting late in reaching students’ houses and even the cosmetics could not be disposed of which led to the unsold stock of the same and created huge financial loss to the complainant. Finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant case praying for the aforesaid relief. Notices were sent to the O.P.s Both O.Ps. appeared but only O.P. 1 filed W/V but no W/V has been filed by O.P. 2 accordingly, the case was heard exparte against O.P. 2.

3.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

Complainant filed her petition of compliant along with documents. O.P. 1 also filed W/V. Denying and disputing all averments of the complainant, O.P. 1 took a specific plea that there was no manufacturing defect in the said cycle but due to misuse, abuse or accident, all the defects, which are mentioned in the complainant/ Petition, arose. Even it is also mentioned by O.P. 1 that complainant purchased the cycle for commercial purpose. Here we are to pose a little. It is very well understood by anyone that howmuch quantity of cosmetics and toiletries can be borne or carried by a lady driven bi-cycle. And complainant has mentioned that she used this cycle to attend her tuitions for earning her livelihood. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the cycle was not used for any commercial purpose. Only on the next day of purchase, a defect was found and thereafter a no. of defects were detected. And O.P. 1 refused to give post sale service. Complainant wrote a letter on 24.04.2013 to O.P. 1 and O.P. 1 remained silent. The cycle was manufactured by O.P 2. O.P 1 is the agent of O.P. 2. Both of them were negligent in discharging their proper duty towards the complainant which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Accordingly the case succeeds on merit against O.Ps. with cost.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  150 of 2013 ( HDF 150 of 2013 )  be  allowed exparte  with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to replace the cycle in question with a new one of same model or a higher model within fifteen days with new  warranty running from the date of delivery to the complainant alternatively O.Ps. are directed to refund entire cost price of the cycle being `3950/- within 15 days from this order. complainant do get an award of `2000/- as compensation and `1000/- as litigation cost. The O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay the entire amount of `3000/- to the complainant within one month i.d. the entire amount of `3000/- shall carry an interest @10% p.a. till actual payment. And the complainant is also directed to return the old cycle on receipt of the new cycle from the O.Ps.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah                                      

                                          .