Abdur Rajjak Molla,

son of Yousuf Ali Molla,

proprietor of M/S. Graphic Embroidery,

Village Balaram Pota, P.O. Panchia,

P.S. Uluberia, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711322.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Sk. Sakirul Islam,

Prop. of Sana Electro Comp.

Village & P.O.  Dhunki, P.S. Panchia,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711322.------------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                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, Abdur Rajjak Molla. 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.p.  to refund Rs. 11,44,000/-  plus interest thereon being the purchase price of one embroidery machine, to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony along with a further compensation of  Rs. 2,75,000/- for financial loss and to pay cost of the instant proceedings with further relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.               Brief facts of the case is that  complainant purchased one computerized embroidery sequin machine from o.p. on payment of Rs. 11,44,000/- on 27-06-2012 in total. For this purpose he took a loan from bank for an amount of Rs. 7,30,000/-. He paid Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash from his pocket and on demand of  o.p., he paid a further amount of Rs. 14,000/- for delivery fitting charges for which o.p. did not issue any money receipt. But from the very inception, the machine was not working properly, some parts were defective and o.p. was informed about such malfunctioning of the machine in question. But o.p. did not take  any action to repair the same thoroughly. After innumerable number of requests made by the complainant, o.p. sent his personnel to inspect the machine who came and inspected the machine and saw that the machine was not giving proper service but that person was unable to repair the same and set it right. And the same condition was continuing for a long time for which complainant had to suffer huge financial loss which is not less than  Rs. 2,75,000/-. Complainant asked for compensation over telephone for this huge financial loss. It is alleged that o.p. threatened him with all filthy words. Ultimately complainant lodged a complaint with local P.S. Uluberia vide  G.D.E. No. 177 of 2013. Even then no appropriate step was taken by police or o.p.  Thereafter complainant sent a lawyer’s notice dated 13-05-2013 but o.p. did not give any reply. Finding no other alternative and being frustrated complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.               Notice was served. O.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

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

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

ii)                  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. It is the specific plea of the o.p. vide para 5 of the written version that complainant never lodged any written complaint to o.p. regarding the malfunctioning and defects of the machine till the filing of this case. During the warranty period, o.p.’s men used to visit complainant’s place to know the status of the machine but during this period of one year no written complaint was filed by the complainant. And as the warranty period is over, complainant is liable to pay the repairing charges to rectify the defects of the machine. But from the Annexure i.e., letter dated 10-05-2013 which complainant sent to Branch Manager, Bank of India, Alampur Branch, wherefrom it is clear that the machine was not functioning from 19-04-2013 to 10-05-2013.  The machine was purchased on 27-06-2012. That means  within one year, the machine went out of order for long 21 days. Thereafter again on 22-05-2013, he sent a letter to the same branch of the Bank of India stating that the machine  was not functioning since 19-04-2013 to 22-05-2013 which clearly reveals that machine had a major defect. Complainant informed o.p. over phone, but o.p. did not take any serious step to rectify the defect which caused a serious mental and financial loss to the complainant. Even warranty period was in force. The warranty period was from 27-06-2012 to 26-06-2013. Even complainant was  compelled to lodge a complaint with local P.S. vide Annexures. O.p. got entire consideration money of Rs. 11,44,000/- from the complainant without any delay. Why he should not be careful about the proper functioning of the machine ? Why he should not take the responsibility to render a defect free machine  to the complainant ?  Here in this case, o.p. not only sold a defective machine but also did not render the appropriate post-sale service to the complainant. He has been seriously negligent in providing service to the complainant.  Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 190  of 2013 ( HDF 190 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P.

            That the  O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 11,44,000/- to the complainant  within 30 days from the date of this order and on receipt of the said amount from o.p., complainant is directed to return the machine in question to the o.p.

      That the complainant do get an award of  Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

      The o.p. is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 11,74,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry  an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.  

      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.