JUDGEMENT
The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one PijushBhagat, S/o Mani Shankar Bhagat, Vill. & P.O. Bhikahar, P.S. Tapan, Dist. DakshinDinajpur, West Bengal (733 142) Mobile No. 96147 69619 filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the said petition was registered before this Forum now renamed as Commission as Complaint Case No. 75/2017.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant PijushBhagat purchased one refrigerator of Godrej Company being Model No. 12DEDGEPRO, SL NO. 1704750673. After some days the refrigerator was out of order. He came to know that the freeze was poped out and fractured. He then requested the O.P. to change the refrigerator. From the petition it is revealed that he informed the matter to the Godrej Customer Care Centre and the Customer Care with the help of the O.P. after one month repaired the freeze and such repairing of the freeze continued near about 1(one) month but the poped and fractured position was not repaired. A sound came from the freeze at the time of starting so the complainant kept the freeze in stopping condition. He then informed the matter to the Consumer Affairs and as per their advice he sent notice to the O.P. on 13/09/2017. After some days the O.P. advised him to bring the freeze with Original Bill and Guarantee Card. Accordingly the complainant returned the freeze with all the required documents to the O.P. He assured the complainant that O.P. returned the prize of the freeze to the complainant within two days but he did not do that. The complainant requested him for the same on 12/10/2017 but he remained indifferent so when the complainant told him that he would again go to the Consumer Affair Department then the O.P. only returned Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the complainant on 13/10/2017. So he has come to this Forum now Commission and filed a case to get relief as prayed for.
The petition has been contested by the O.P. by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against them contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in Law as there is no cause of action,, it is barred by Law of limitation, the case is bad for misjoinder of parties and also barred by principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence
The definite defense case is that the complainant purchased the refrigerator after full satisfaction and also the complainant or any one of his family mishandled the refrigerator just after purchasing. He suppressed all the facts in his complaint petition. So dismissal of the case has been prayed for.
In order to prove the case the complainant Pijush Bhagat was examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined in the form of questionnaires. During trial the complainant filed the documents as per Firisty.
On the other hand the O.P. Subrata Roy was examined as O.P.W-1 but he was not cross-examined as the complainant did not filed questionnaires.
Now the point for determination:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
There is no dispute that the complainant purchased the refrigerator from the O.P. as because in the written version the O.P. has stated that due to mishandling of the refrigerator by the complainant the refrigerator was out of order. By such admission by the O.P. it clearly indicates that the complainant purchased the refrigerator from the O.P. Moreover, from the xerox copy of the cash memo it is found that the complainant purchased the refrigerator from the O.P.
Now the main point is to be considered whether after purchase the refrigerator in question became malfunctioning. On perusal of the record it is found that the refrigerator was purchased on 23/07/2017 and on 13/09/2017 the complainant informed the O.P. about the malfunctioning of the refrigerator. On 07/10/2017 the complainant handed over the refrigerator along with the original documents to the O.P. At that time the O.P. told neither him that within two days he will refund the money but ultimately the money was not refunded nor the refrigerator be handed over.
The main defense case of the O.P. is that due to malhandling the refrigerator was become malfunctioning but in this regard the O.P. did not examine any witness or expert to prove such fact. It is the duty of the O.P. to prove such fact that the refrigerator became malfunctioning due to the mishandling of the complainant. But no evidence has come before this Forum. So it is quite difficult to hold that the refrigerator was out of order due to the malhandling by the complainant.
Moreover, it is very peculiar to note that within two months from the date of purchase the refrigerator became malfunctioning. So definitely, the refrigerator was not in proper form at the time of purchase. Moreover, the O.P. received the refrigerator but he did not refund the money nor handed over the refrigerator. So definitely it is a latches on the part of the O.P. Moreover, why customer will be deceived within two months from the date of purchase. So definitely the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, ordered that
the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost.
The complainant gets Rs.11,400/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Only) for refund of value of the refrigerator beside that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) for litigation cost totaling Rs.26,400/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred Only).
The O.P. is directed to pay the totaling amount Rs. 26,400/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred Only) within 45 (Forty Five) days from the date of this order failing which it will carry interest @ 5 % p.a. till the recovery and the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree in execution.
Let a copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.
