Sri Provat Chandra Ghosh filed a consumer case on 24 Jul 2023 against Sri Chanchal Singh, Proprietor/Owner of Aadrita Engineering Works in the Bankura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/30/2023 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Jul 2023.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA
Consumer Complaint No. 30/2023
Date of Filing: 04.04.2023
Before:
1. Samiran Dutta Ld. President.
2. Rina Mukherjee Ld. Member.
3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui Ld. Member.
For the Complainant: Ld. Advocate Sandip Chakraborti
For the O.P. : None
Complainant
Sri Provat Chandra Ghosh, S/O Late Durjayadhan Ghosh, Vill-Kandra, Ghoshpara Road, Mandir, P.O. Malihati, P.S.Salar, District- Murshidabad, PIN-742 401
Opposite Party
Sri Chanchal Singh, S/O Late Rameswar Singh, Proprietor/Owner of Aadrita Engineering Works, Near D.A.V. School, Bankura, PIN- 722 155
FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Order No.05
Dated:24-07-2023
Complainant files hazira through advocate.
No step is taken by the O.P. nor any W.V. filed. Statutory period for filing W.V. has already expired and so the case is taken up for Ex-parte hearing.
The Complainant’s case is that he purchased a Puffed Rice-making Machine from O.P. for Rs.1,20,000/- on 17/10/2019 under proper receipt and transported the said machine to his residence at Murshidabad from the place of business of the O.P. at Bankura and a mechanic was sent with the machine for fittings purpose but the said mechanic of the O.P. returned back to Bankura without fitting the machine to work it properly. Thereafter the Complainant contacted with the O.P. on 09/12/2019 and on that date the O.P. executed a document with the undertaking to operate the said machine within 27/12/2019 otherwise the machine will be returned back. But the O.P. did not comply with his own promise. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.
Contd……p/2
Page: 2
Be it mentioned here that earlier a similar complaint was lodged before this Commission No. being C.C. 15/2000 but it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24/02/2023 and thereafter the instant complaint has been filed against the O.P. on the same cause of action. Be it mentioned here that a second complaint on the same cause of action is maintainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2016) SCC Online SC 76
-: Decision with reasons: -
Having regard to the facts of the case, documents on record and the submission and contention on behalf of the Complainant the Commission finds that the O.P. has deliberately committed deficiency in service by neglecting to render proper service and maintenance for operation of the machine as a result of which the complainant has suffered pecuniary loss to run his business. It is the duty of the product seller to install the product in running condition to the satisfaction of the customer but in this case the O.P. has totally neglected his duty and caused pecuniary loss to the Complainant by not taking proper step to make the Puffed Rice-making Machine functioning. The Complainant’s prima facie case is established. The Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
The case therefore succeeds.
Hence it is ordered……..
That the case is allowed Ex-Parte against the O.P
The O.P. is directed to undertake the service of the Puffed Rice-making Machine of the Complainant in running condition to the satisfaction of the Complainant within a fortnight from this date in default the O.P. will pay to the Complainant Rs.1, 20,000/ - as the price of the Puffed Rice-making Machine within a month thereafter after taking back the defective machine.
Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.
____________________ _________________ _________________
HON’BLE PRESIDENT HON’BLE MEMBER HON’BLE MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.