DATE OF FILING                    :     22.09.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      02.01.2015.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     06.08.2015.  

Smrity Singh @ Suhridaya Singh,   

daughter  of  Sri  Vijai Narayan Singh,

residing at 9, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Golabari,

District Howrah,

PIN 711 106.   …..….………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1.         Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.,

  Plot no. 1, Sipcot Industrial Park Phase 2,

  Sunguvar  Chat Ram Post, Sriperambadur,

  Chennai 602106.

   

  2.         The Regional Sales Manager,

  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

  10A, Pressman House, 2^nd floor,

  Lee  Road, Lala Rajpat Rai Sarani,

  Kolkata 700 020 ( W.B.).

   

  3.         Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. ( Branch ),

  20, Old Court House Street,

  Kolkata 700 001 and

  Required office at

  15B, Sarat Bose Road,

  Kolkata 700 020. …………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

   

                                                  P    R    E     S    E    N     T

               Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                                 Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                       Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

  1. Complainant, Smrity Singh @ Suhridaya Singh,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 the  purchase price of the Refrigerator  in question amounting to Rs. 28,500/ along with interest-, to pay Rs. 200/- per day as compensation from 28.05.2014  and Rs. 1,500/- as litigation costs  along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 
  2. Complainant bought one double door refrigerator being model no. RT 33FAJFABX/ TL 321 LTRREF from the o.p. no. 3 on payment of Rs. 28,500/- on 10.02.2014 vide Annexures1. Since the day of purchase, complainant found that the freezing capacity of the refrigeration was not proper also the slider of the refrigerator was not moving. After observing such problem, complainant complained before the Customer Care, Howrah, on 28.05.2014 and on the next date i.e., on 29.05.2014, an engineer was deputed for inspection and he found that some parts were defective and gave assurance that the defects would be removed. Thereafter on 18.06.2014 a technician was sent from the Service Centre, Howrah, and he also examined the said set and left under observation for a period of two days. After long waiting complainant contacted the said Service Centre, Howrah, over phone but they did not take any positive step. Subsequently complainant sent an advocate’s notice dated 01.8.2014 to the o.p. no. 2 but the said advocate’s notices was returned as refused. So being frustrated and finding no other alternative, he filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
  3. Notices were served. Only o.p3. appeared and filed written version. But others remained absent and no w/v filed by them. Accordingly, case was heard on contest against o.p3 andex parte against the rest..

1. 4. Three points arose for determination :

1. Is the Refrigerator Machine a defective one ?

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

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

   DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

   5. All  the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures and noted its contents. We have also gone through the w/v filed by o.p.3.Even after making the full payment of  Rs. 28,500/-, complainant could not utilize the set in a proper way. She has been deprived of using the set. Immediately after the purchase, the defects were detected by the technicians sent by the o.ps. But it could not be set right. Since 01.08.2014, no fruitful steps were taken by o.ps. The overall attitude of o.ps. is nothing but harassing which certainly caused severe mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. O.Ps. should have remembered that the success of their business totally depends upon the customer satisfaction. No  effective post sale service has been given by the o.ps. in proper time.. Moreover, the o.p.nos1&2 have not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.  O.ps. have miserably failed   to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in  service coupled with unfair trade practice  on their  part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.   And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.  

         Hence,

                                       O     R     D      E      R      E        D

         That the C. C. Case No. 522 of 2014 ( HDF 522 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest against o.p.3  with costs and exparte against o.p. no. 1&2  with   costs.    

         That the O.P.s are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 28,500/-, as purchase price of the Refrigerator, to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

          That the o.ps are  further  directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/-  as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order.

         That the o.ps are  further directed to pay the entire decreetal  amount of Rs. 33,500/- to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid  amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization. The complainant is also directed to return the Refrigerator to the o.ps no. 1, lying in his custody after receiving the decreetal amount.

         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.