C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/2012/86

COMPLAINANT                  :           Sri Anirban Biswas,

                                    S/o Sri Amitava Biswas,

                                    Madhu Chowdhuri Lane,

                                    P.O. Ghurni, Krishnagar,

                                    P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia,

                                    PIN 741103

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   : 1)     Santanu Mitra

                                    Proprietor – National Wood Industries,

                                    D.L. Roy Road, (Pollysree),

                                    Krishnagar, Nadia, PIN – 741101

                                       2)      General Manager,

                                    Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.

                                    6^th Floor SPIC “Building”

                                    Annexe No. 88, Mount Road,

                                    Guindy, Chennai – 32

PRESENT                : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT

                 : SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL, MEMBER

   : SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                         :  18^th November, 2013

:    J U D G M E N T    :

            The complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act was filed on 20.11.12 by Anirban Biswas against Santanu Mitra, Proprietor of National Wood Industries, and the General Manager, Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. as OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 respectively.  The OP No. 2 did not contest the case and the case is exparte vide order No.06, dtd. 18.03.13.  OP No. 1 contested the case strongly examination-in-chief was filed by OP No. 1, Santanu Mitra.  Reply to the interrogatories was filed on 08.10.13. 

            The sum and substance of the case is as below:-

            Panasonic Xerox Machine Model No. 1900 Print, Scan, Copy – Multi function printer was sold on 03.02.12 to the complainant.   It is not a Xerox machine as claimed by the complainant.  Admittedly, the machine was supplied and repaired when it whenever went of order.  At the time of argument we find that there is no grievance regarding repairing of the machine.  The only grievance is harassment of the complainant by the OP for which Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- for cost of the case and Rs. 1,000/- for cost of conveyance has been prayed.  Adding Rs. 500/- as the interest the total claim comes to Rs.18,556/-.

            The OP No. 1 denied any kind of harassment caused by him to the complainant.  The complainant’s case has been advanced by Mihir Lal Biswas, President, Nadia District Consumer Association.  The points are thus decided in favour of complainant.  

POINTS FOR DECESION

1. Point No. 1:   Did the machine go out of order during warranty period?
2. Point No. 2:   Was there any harassment and mental agony suffered by the   
3.  

REASOND DECISIONS

            Both the points are taken up together for discussion of brevity and convenience.

            We have already pointed out that the OP No. 2 did not contest the case.  It is only OP No. 1 who came before the court and contested the case.

            Perused the examination-in-chief filed by the complainant but 08.04.13.  It has been supported by affidavit.  The evidence-in-chief is nicely printed by number reference to the documents relied upon by the complainant.  The OP No. 1 has also filed affidavit.

            We have considered the interrogatories filed on 18.10.13.   The complainant has right to get back the machine in working condition with fresh warranty but the compensation and litigation cost along with mental anxiety and harassment have been flatly denied by the OPs.

            During argument it has been admitted that no relief regarding change of machine has been prayed.  The thorough repairing of the machine was rendered and it has been repaired time and again.  The machine is not for any commercial purpose it was purchased by domestic purpose.

            Be that as it may, order dtd. 04.10.13 clearly shows that the machine was repaired thoroughly by the OP No. 1 and there is no grievance regarding repair.

            The machine went out of order number of times within warranty period.  This is a deficiency in service as contemplated U/s 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987.

            Hence, the suffering of the complainant should be compensated.  We have considered the socio-economic circumstances of the complainant.  Harassment and mental agony can be compensated with exemplary compensation of Rs. 1,000/-.  The cost of the case is fixed at Rs. 500/- as no lawyer conducted the case. 

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/12/86 be and the same is allowed on contest.  The OP No. 1 is directed to extend the warranty period of 6 months.  He is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within the period one month of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount shall carry interest @ 5% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount. 

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.