Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 26-11-2015, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in CC/406/2013, whereof the complaint case has been allowed.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant purchased one Treadmill machine from the OP on 10-09-2012.  Unfortunately, within few days of its purchase, the Complainant found that the machine was not working properly.  On receipt of his complaint, Engineer of the OP visited his house and installed a new panel in the machine.  Despite this, the Complainant did not witness much improvement to the performance of the machine.  So, the Complainant again lodged complaint.  Then the OP took away the said machine and delivered him another machine.  It is alleged that even after replacement of the old machine, the Complainant experienced similar problem with the newly installed machine.  On receipt of complaint, though agent of the OP visited his house, he did not change the panel and since then, the machine is not working at all.  Therefore, the complaint was filed.

By filing a WV, the OP submitted that the Complainant was required to install one Servo Stabiliser of 3 KW capacity.  However, he did not do so.  The OP further stated that in order to prove his allegation, the Complainant was required to send the said machine to a Government accredited testing laboratory which has not been done by him.  The OP alleged that the Complainant furnished one manufactured bill towards purchase of stabilizer, namely, ‘Power D’.  It also pointed out that a Servo stabilizer costs approx. Rs. 10,000/-; whereas, the bill furnished by the Complainant was a cheap one.  The OP, thus, apprehended that the said stabilizer, if at all purchased, was nothing but a square peg in a round hole. 

Decision with reasons

Heard both sides and gone through the material on record.

Considering the fact that the Respondent did not prove his case by subjecting the concerned machine to technical scrutiny through any Govt. accredited testing laboratory, on the basis of sheer allegation, it was not proper for the Ld. District Forum to direct the Appellant to refund the price of the machine in question along with other reliefs. 

In any case, given that the problem developed within the warranty period, we deem it appropriate to direct the Appellant to do the needful to make the machine properly functional.  At the same time, we also deem it fit and proper to direct the Respondent to purchase the recommended Stabilizer to meet the desire of the Appellant.

The Appeal, accordingly, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent in part.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  However, both sides are directed to follow the directions stated hereinabove and the entire exercise must be completed within 40 days henceforth.