DATE OF FILING                    :     28.04.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      04.06.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     20.07.2015.

Mrs. Indradevi Agarwal,

wife of Sundarlal Agarwal,

residing at 16/1,  Guha Road, Flat no. 201,

Block B, P.S. Liluah,

District Howrah……...……………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1.         Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

              having its service centre at Sumangal Building,

              4, Lee  Road, Ground Floor,

              Kolkata 7000 20.

   

  2.         Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,

              a company having its business place

              at 20, Old Court Home Street,

              Kolkata 700 001.

   

   

  3.         Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,

              having its office at 15B, Sarat Bose Road,

              Kolkata 7000 20. …………………………………………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,  L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).       

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

   

  1. Complainant, Mrs. Indradevi Agarwal,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 being Samsung RT 55 KZRSL1REF/446 LTR. & W. Machine Semi Auto being Samsung WT 727 QPNDMW / 7.2 KG WMin question totaling amount of Rs. 59,000/-, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-alongwith other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2. The brief facts of the case is that complainant bought two household gadgets in question from o.p. no. 2 on payment of Rs. 59,000/- on 13.08.2013 from o.p. no. 2 duly manufactured by o.p. no. 1 for her domestic use vide Annexure ‘A’. Since the date of purchase, complainant watched that the refrigerator was not working properly having cooling problem. So complainant informed the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 about the defect. One representative of the o.p. no. 1 visited the house of the complainant on 07.09.2013 and noted that “excess cooling due to case thermo defect”and replaced with new case thermo and choke but the problem was not removed vide Annexure ‘B’. Again on 08.01.2014 complainant lodged another complaint but the o.ps. did not take any positive step. After that complainant sent advocate’s notice dated 08.2.2014 as well as 24.02.2014 to both the o.ps. vide Annexures. O.p. no. 2 replied vide their letter dated 13.02.2014 which could not satisfy the complainant.Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, she filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.

3. Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.

4. Upon pleading of the parties two points arose for determination :

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

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

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures and also the written versions of the o.ps. and noted their contents.   Even after making the full payment of  Rs. 41,484/- plus VAT for the refrigerator in question, complainant could not utilize the set in a proper way. she has been deprived of using the refrigerator which is really a very important and useful household gadgets. Although o.p. no. 1 took a plea in para 2 of their written version that complainant was educated by their personnel on different occasions but it is a fact that the problem still persisted. And o.p. no. 1 remained silent even after receiving the lawyer’s notice. So it is very much clear that the overall attitude of o.p. no. 1  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 proper post sale service has been given by the o.ps. in proper time. And o.p. no. 1 also cannot shrug off its duty and responsibility towards the complainant. O.ps. have miserably failed   to provide post sale service 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. 255 of 2014 ( HDF 255 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest  with  costs  against  the O.Ps.  

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 41,484/-  plus VAT as purchase price of the refrigerator in question to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the amount shall carry 9% interest p.a. till actual payment.

       That they are further  directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/-  as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the amount shall carry 9% interest p.a. till actual payment.

      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.