This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-  

The complainant Abhijit Pandey purchased a washing machine, Godrej model No. GWS  6203PPD, 6.2 kg on 29.03.13 on payment of Rs. 8,000/- from the shop of the OP No. 1, Santi Traders, Krishnagar.  Soon after the said purchase the complainant found that there was leakage of water.   The complainant went to OP No. 1 for repairing the machine who advised the complainant to go to OP No. 1, the authorized service provider of Godrej & Boyce.  OP 2 sent his mechanic on 31.10.13 to the complainant & leakage problem was solved.  Thereafter, the spin motor of the machine became ineffective & inoperative.  Naturally the complainant informed OP 2 to change the spin motor on 10.12.14.  The complainant requested the OPs to change the machine which had inherent defect from the inception of the purchase.  The machine was two years warranty.  After the replacement of the spin motors it started malfunctioning & on 12.01.15 the spin motor was changed.  On 05.01.15 the machine went again out of order which was informed to the OPs vide complaint docket No. 100650 dtd.  05.01.15.   The spin motor was again removed but not replaced resulting the fact that the machine was lying idle.  The complainant lastly went to both the OPs on 11.01.15 & requested them to supply a new machine of the same motor but the OPs turned a deaf ear to the request of the complainant.  Thus, the complainant prays for consideration money back with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental pain & harassment.  The complainant has not only prayed for Rs. 8,000/- (price of the machine) also prayed for litigation cost.

The OP Nos. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing written objection on 6^th May, 2015 although the notice of the Forum reached them but on 04.02.15.  Thus about 3 months delay was caused by the OP No. 1 & 2.  All the allegations of the complainant went denied by OP Nos. 1 & 2.  OP Nos. 3 did not appear & hence, the case went exparte against OP 3.

The main contentions of the OPs are as below:-

The washing machine was repaired by the mechanics & being satisfied the complainant signed on the job paper & hence, the case is vexatious & harassing.  It is admitted that on 06.01.15  & 27.01.15 defective parts of the machines were repaired by the OPs & hence the complainant being satisfied signed on the job paper on 27.01.15.  The complainant did not file any examination-in-chief.  The OP No. 1, Debobrata Dey filed exmination-in-chief.  Interrogatories were filed on 24^th June, 2015 on the examination-in-chief filed on 15.06.15.   Reply to the interrogatories were filed on 20.08.15. 

POINTS FOR DECISION

1. Point No. 1:   Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Point No. 2:   Was the washing machine causing trouble to the complainant?
3. Point No. 3:   Have the OPs any fault for deficiency in service?
4. Point No. 4:   Is the complainant entitled to get any relief?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.

            We have heard Ld. Advocates of both sides on 29.09.15.  Brief note of argument was filed by Ld. Advocates for the OPs along with documents as firisti on 29.09.15.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant prayed for treating the petition of complaint as BNA for the complainant.  We have meticulously gone through the pleadings of the parties & documents filed. 

            It is admitted position that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs.

It is further admitted in the pleadings & also in the evidence that the machine was giving trouble since 31.10.2013.   For the purpose of convenience the following dates are important to apprise the points of dispute:-

1. Date of purchase of the machine was on 29.03.2013
2. 1^st complaint - on 31.10.2013
3. 2^nd complaint - on 04.02.2014
4. 3^rd complaint -  on 21.11.2014
5. 4^th complaint - on 10.12.2014
6. 5^th  complaint - on 02.01.2015
7. 6^th complaint - on 06.01.2015

The following Annexures have been filed by the complainant:-

1) Annexure – 1 -Tax of invoice receipt

2) Annexure – 2 - Warranty certificate

3) Annexure – 3 to 9 are the job papers.

1. Tax of Invoice showing payment of 8,000/- to the OP No. 1 by the complainant
2. Annexure – 2 goes to show that the machine in question had 24 months warranty.
3. Annexure – 3 to 9 are the jobs papers & showing time to time repair of the machine.

OPW -1, Debabrata Dey has stated in examination-in-chief that the machine was repaired & the problem was solved by their mechanics on 22.11.2014 & thereafter on 02.12.14 it has also been admitted that the machine was also repaired on 02.11.15 vide Para- 14.  Para- 20 of the examination-in-chief it has also been denied that the machine had any defect on 27.01.15.  Leakage problem of the machine was also denied at Para- 22 on 31.10.2013.  In the interrogatory in question No. 1 dtd. 24^th June, 2015 the opposite parties have admitted that the machine went out of order 5 times vide reply No. 1 filed on 20^th August, 2015.  It has been falsely stated that the warranty period was one year because the Annexure – 2 shows the warranty period is two years.  In Annexure – 2, question No. 2 spin motors problem of the washing machine has been admitted vide reply against the interrogatory filed by the complainant. 

Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs have been established not only of the oral evidence but also on the basis of 2 to 9.  The documents filed by the opposite party along with the brief note of argument go to show that the machine was incessant defect & causing trouble to the complainant which were repaired by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. 

It is an unfair trade practice on the part of all the OPs as contemplated in Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly shows that the "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”

            In view of the above discussion keeping in view the arrangement of Ld. Advocate of both sides & admission by the OPs we are inclined to hold that all OPs are deficient in service & they resorted unfair trade practice causing mental agony & harassment to the complainant.  Hence, all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant & against all the OPs.

            Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2015/03 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No. 1 & 2 and exparte against OP No. 3. 

OPs are jointly or severally liable for the deficiency in service & hence they are directed to compensate the complainant to refund of Rs. 8,000/- or by replacing the old machine by a new one.  The OPs are also compensated the complainant with Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment & Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the suit within one month from this date.  If the OPs failed to comply with the order penal proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall follow.

If the OPs failed to pay the amount mentioned above & replacement the penal interest of Rs. 200/- per day shall be assessed from the date till the date of full realization of the decretal amount.  The penal interest shall be deposited by the OPs with this Forum in the account of Consumer Welfare Fund, D.C.D.R.F., Nadia.

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